- Care home
Badby Park
We served three warning notices on Elysium Neurological Services (Badby) Limited on 18 March 2026 for failing to meet the regulations in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment and good governance at Badby Park.
Assessment report published 26 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 2 September 2025 to 22 January 2026.
Badby Park is a care home with nursing providing support to older people and younger adults living with dementia, sensory impairment, mental health conditions and physical disabilities.
This assessment was prompted by information we held about this service. We carried out a comprehensive assessment and assessed 33 quality statements.
At the time of our assessment there were 70 people using the service. As part of our assessment activity, we undertook an on-site visit on 2 and 3 September 2025, 29 September 2025, 30 October 2025 and 8 December 2025.
This assessment was carried out by 3 inspectors, and 3 Experts by Experience who have personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
During this assessment we spoke with people, and their relatives or advocates. We also spoke with staff including the registered manager, deputy manager, registered nurses, maintenance staff, the quality monitoring lead, the area manager care and domestic staff.
People were not always safe. Identified risks were not always managed safely and where incidents and accidents had occurred lessons were not always learned. There was not enough staff consistently deployed to meet people’s needs, and some nurse training and competency checks had not been carried out in line with the provider’s own requirements.
People lived on 5 separate care and treatment units depending on their health condition and care needs. The quality of the service was inconsistent across units with not all people and staff having the same experience. Not all people were receiving person-centred care that met their needs, however, people found staff were kind and caring.
Systems and processes were not effective in monitoring the safety and quality of the service and action was not always taken where required. Repairs and maintenance to the building and grounds had not always been actioned. This meant people had remained at risk of harm.
People and staff did not always feel either able to raise concerns or listened to when they did.
At our last assessment we found a breach of regulation relating to good governance and the service was rated requires improvement. At this assessment we found the service remained in breach of regulation relating to good governance. We also identified breaches of regulation relating to people’s safe care and treatment and person-centred care. The service has been unable to achieve a good rating for the last 5 consecutive inspections.
The service has been rated inadequate overall. The service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provides a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civic or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
Relatives told us they had the opportunity to ask questions and talk to staff, one relative told us, “I can go and sit and have a chat with them [staff], talking to [unit manager] is easy.”However, relatives did not always feel informed if their relative was involved ill or taken into hospital. One relative told us, “I’ve had calls once or twice, but there have been times e.g. when [relative] had a bruise on this head and they [staff] called in the paramedics, I was not told. Another time [relative] was given antibiotics for a chest infection, and I was not told about it.”
Relatives told us there were not enough activities available and the poor condition of the outside space meant it wasn’t consistently wheelchair accessible. They told us there used to be more activities available such as cooking groups and trips out but this had stopped a couple of years ago. However, other relatives told us there relatives were still getting out to shops and for coffee shop visits. The levels of socialisation and integration into the community was inconsistent across the home.
People and their relatives gave mixed feedback on their involvement with care planning and this varied across units of the home. One relative said, “They don’t consult with me re any reviews of [relatives] needs.”
Some people told us there was not always enough staff, this resulted in longer waits for support. One person said, “Not always enough people [staff] to do all the jobs”. People felt there was not enough staff available to support with activities or spend time on a 1:1 with people.
We received mixed feedback on food with some people enjoying the food and others choosing to supply their own meals and snacks. On relative told us the food had improved as there was now more choice and a hot meal was available in the evenings.
People told us that staff were kind and caring and they felt safe in the service. They said the home was clean and repairs were actioned promptly, they could personalise the rooms and hang pictures and posters.