- Care home
Smalley Hall Care Home
Assessment report published 13 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
Smalley Hall Care Home is a residential care home, providing accommodation and personal care for up to 26 people. At the time of our assessment, there were 21 people using the service. The building has 2 floors, and people had access to communal lounges and a secure outdoor space.
Who the service is for
The service supports older people, people with physical disabilities and people living with dementia.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 30 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
There was a strong learning culture within the service. When things went wrong, staff and leaders understood their reporting responsibilities. Accidents and incidents were regularly reviewed and analysed to identify learning and actions to improve safety. The registered manager told us, “We are always looking at what’s needed to improve safety.
Safeguarding was taken seriously, with clear policies, procedures and training in place to support staff in recognising and responding to safeguarding concerns appropriately.
Risks to people were identified and robustly assessed, involving people and those important to them. Care plans provided clear guidance for staff on how to support people safely, and we observed staff providing care in line with individual guidance. For example, when supporting a person who displayed some signs of distress. Staff and leaders understood positive risk taking in promoting people’s independence and supporting them to make informed choices.
People were cared for in a safe, clean and well-maintained environment. Equipment and accessibility aids people needed to keep safe were available and kept in good working order. Regular health and safety checks on the premises and equipment were carried out. The service had recently undergone a refurbishment, which had been completed to a high standard.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.
There was enough staff to keep people safe. Staff had received training to carry out their roles. Staff were committed to developing their skills and progressing within the organisation, and some told us they were keen to see further opportunities to support their career development.
Nationally recognised tools were used effectively to monitor outcomes for people, for example tools to monitor skin integrity, or risk of malnutrition. Staff worked well with healthcare professionals, and records showed advice and recommendations were promptly sought and followed. A visiting professional shared, “Staff know people so well, they would pick up any changes before I do but they will always, always, mention it, they take time to get to know them.”
Care records reflected people’s diverse needs, preferences and life histories. We received consistent feedback that staff knew people well and people’s choices in how they wished to be supported were respected. For example, preference of gender of staff supporting them.
The service was well-led. There was a positive culture within the service, with the provider’s values understood and shared by staff and leaders. Staff and leaders were proud to work at Smalley Hall Care Home and were motivated by providing good quality, person centred care for people. One staff told us, “We want to provide the best care for our residents.
There were robust governance systems in place to support quality improvement and risk oversight. The registered manager was supported by the provider’s compliance team. The registered manager told us, “If there is an area we know we need to focus on more the provider will tweak the audit so we can add more focus. For example, following a medicines error.” Audits and checks were data driven, and created clear actions where issues were identified. These were reviewed to ensure improvements were made. Feedback was actively sought and analysed to shape the service. This demonstrated a commitment to continuous learning and improvement.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives spoke highly of the warm, welcoming and positive atmosphere within the service. A relative shared, “I think it’s a really lovely place.” Another told us, “It is really friendly and homely.”
Everyone we spoke with felt the service was safe, and staff were responsive to any concerns about safety. One relative shared, “If anything happens they phone me straight up, straight away.” Another shared, “[Relative] is absolutely safe and cared for.” People and relatives all confirmed they were involved in care planning and told us staff knew people and their support needs well. A relative told us, “Staff know [relative] inside out.”
People and relatives told us they had enough to eat, drink and enjoyed the meals provided. People were involved in menu planning and invited to taster sessions so they could sample the choices on offer. The mealtime experience was observed to be calm, relaxed and well-supported. People had plenty of snacks and drinks available whenever they liked. Kitchen staff were knowledgeable in people’s dietary needs and preferences, including where people needed food modifying to ensure they could eat and drink safely.
We received consistent positive feedback on staff’s kind and caring approach with people. Feedback included, “The staff are lovely that is one of the reasons I chose this place.” And, “The staff are saints and deserve double the pay. They are always pleasant, happy and lovely to the residents, lovely kind people.” Another shared, “I absolutely cannot fault the staff.” Feedback from a professional who worked with the service stated, “Staff demonstrate kindness, patience and a genuine commitment to resident wellbeing.”
We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. This showed us staff interacted with people warmly, were patient and provided comfort and re-assurance when needed. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity when supporting with personal care.
People were supported to engage in various activities and also access the local community. For example, some people were supported to attend the local church. We also observed hair and beauty treatments being provided. Some relatives felt there was scope to improve consistency of activities, outings and ensuring these were meaningful for everyone. The registered manager confirmed a new activities co-ordinator had commenced in post at the time of our assessment, which would ensure more dedicated capacity for activities at the service.
There were systems in place for people and relatives to share their views, and they told us they felt confident they were listened to and concerns were acted upon. People and relatives fed back the registered manager was visible and approachable. A relative told us, ““[Registered manager] from the word go has been fantastic.”