The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Highgrove House Residential Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

32-34 Winchester Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 4DH (01903) 230487

Provided and run by:
Highgrove House Carehome Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

About the service

Highgrove House Residential Care Home is based over 2 floors and has a large garden, 2 lounges, a conservatory and a large dining area. At the time of our assessment there were 17 people living at the service.

Who the service is for

The service supports older people and people living with dementia.

Our view of the service

We carried out this assessment on 09 April to 14 April 2026 to confirm that the previous rating of good remains accurate. Where we found that practice has continued to meet a good standard, we have not reported in detail on these areas and have focused our findings on any areas where improvement was needed or where exceptional practice was found.

Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse; they were knowledgeable about what concerns they would need to report and to whom. Risk assessments had been conducted to ensure people were supported with their health conditions; however, we identified further detail was needed to provide thorough guidance to staff. The registered manager told us they would review care records to ensure they contained further information. Staff had received appropriate training to support people and met their needs well. There were enough staff to support people, they were recruited safely and received ongoing supervisions to promote wellbeing and development.

Lessons learned were shared with staff in response to incidents and accidents, reviews ensured trends and themes were identified; risk assessments were updated and professionals were engaged to provide advice. The environment was designed and decorated to suit people’s needs. Environmental risks were assessed and mitigated, equipment was serviced and the signage and layout of the building promoted safety and independence for people. People could easily access the garden which had raised beds and seating areas.

People had opportunities to visit and spend time at the service prior to moving in, this also supported the assessment process. People’s initial views were captured and where appropriate, their relatives and professionals were engaged. Nationally recognised assessment tools were used to ascertain people’s risk of skin breakdown, nutrition and pain levels. Staff monitored people’s health changes and escalated concerns to professionals. Where people may experience distress in their dementia, techniques were used, alongside an activity schedule which kept people stimulated and engaged. Formal consent had been sought from people or their legal representatives, staff continually offered choices and asked permission from people before they supported them.

Staff spoke to and about people with warmth, acknowledged their individuality and respected their dignity. People dressed as they wished, staff used their preferred nicknames and respected their preference of communication. Activity sessions included music, quizzes and arts and crafts, people’s artwork was displayed around the service in frames. People were enabled to remain as independent as possible, this included when attending trips out. Staff gave examples of how people’s independence was promoted and we observed people using adapted equipment to support this.

People received person-centred care by staff who understood their backgrounds and histories. Most staff had worked at the service for many years and had developed close working relationships with people. People were enabled to personalise their space. People and their relative’s comments, suggestions and complaints were taken seriously. They had opportunities to air their views at meetings and confidential discussions with the registered manager, their feedback was listened to and acted upon.

The registered manager and their team fostered an open culture where everyone’s thoughts and feelings were considered. Staff and people were kept up to date and consulted on changes within the service. The registered manager described striving for a harmonious service and considered whether new people would be happy at the service and their dynamics with others living there. Quality checks were in place and areas in need of improvement were identified and addressed. Links had been formed with managers from the provider’s other services to share information, support and good practice. The registered manager told us of collaborative working with a university which resulted in better outcomes for people.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager and the running of the service from staff and professionals. Some of their comments included, “In short, they are brilliant. All members of staff are professional, caring, compassionate, and friendly. Their dedication and support truly make a difference, and it is clear they are committed to providing the highest standard of care.” And, “I have never come across a manager with so much energy and enthusiasm, the effort she puts in I don’t know how she does it. She has been fantastic and values all of us. I love working alongside her, she is bubbly and chatty and one of the team.”

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 principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (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.

26 February 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Highgrove House is a care home without nursing which is registered to provide a service for up to 19 people aged 65 and over who require assistance with personal care. At the time of the inspection 17 people were living at the home. People living at the home had a variety of care and support needs, such as dementia and physical disabilities. The service is provided from an adapted residence offering single occupancy en-suite rooms across two floors.

We found the following examples of good practice.

People were well supported by staff to have telephone and internet contact with their family and friends. The service facilitated in person visits in a manner which minimised the risk of infection spread, including outside visits, and visits using patio doors in ground floor rooms.

Plans were in place to isolate people with COVID-19 to minimise transmission. The service had good supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) that were readily available at stations throughout the service. Staff were seen to be wearing PPE in line with national guidance.

Visitors were asked screening questions and to wash their hands with soap and water when they arrived. Lateral flow tests were conducted and visitors allowed in the home once a negative test was established.

Staff had received training on how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and staff and residents were regularly tested for COVID-19. The building was clean and free from clutter to facilitate enhanced cleaning of high touch areas.

Staff ensured people’s welfare had been maintained and they had sufficient stimulation, such as staff supported activities and support for people's hobbies such as crafting. People were seen to be supported by staff to participate in activities and the atmosphere within the home was relaxed with people seen to be enjoying interactions with staff.

11 July 2018

During a routine inspection

Highgrove House Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home can accommodate 19 people and at the time of the inspection it was full. People within the home had a variety of needs and the home cared for older people with a range physical disabilities and mental health issues, including dementia. Care was provided over two floors and there were large communal areas, including a large dining room, conservatory, separate lounges and communal gardens.

We inspected Highgrove House Residential Home on 11 and 12 July 2018. This was an unannounced inspection. The home had previously been owned by a different provider and this was the first inspection since the home had been managed by Highgrove House Care Home Limited.

At the time of the inspection a registered manager was not in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, there was a new manager in post and it was their intention to become the registered manager. They had submitted their registered manager application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which was currently being processed. The owner of the home was also actively involved in the running of the home and present on the day of the inspection.

The home was accepting more people with dementia. This was impacting on the level of care people required. At the time of the inspection there were sufficient staff on duty and people told us that staff responded to their needs quickly. However, staff expressed some concerns about the impact of their increasing workload. This was discussed with the manager, who assured us they regularly reviewed people's dependency needs and staffing levels were kept under review.

There was a recruitment system in place and appropriate checks had been made to ensure new staff were suitable to work within a care setting. However, some of the details were stored in a different folder and the recruitment files did not always state the reason for any breaks in employment. This was discussed with the management team and they we taking appropriate action to improve the documentation. Staff received regular training to ensure they had the relevant knowledge and skills to care for the people in the home. There was also a programme of supervision and appraisals, which provided staff with support and guidance.

People told us they felt safe and well cared for. There was a safe-guarding procedure in place and staff could discuss the actions they would take, to ensure the continued safety of people under their care. Medicines were administered appropriately and there was a clear method for ordering and disposing of medicines. Medicines were stored according to current recommendations. The home was clean and staff followed procedures to maintain infection control. Environmental and personal risks were assessed and kept under review. There was a system in place to ensure equipment was maintained and the environment was safe. The environment had been adapted to suit the needs of the people, with an accessible garden, a lift and railings for ease of access.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. People were cared for in a kind and compassionate manner. They spoke highly of the staff and the staff were proud of the care they provided. We observed staff gaining consent from people and offering choices. Staff were aware of requirements in relation to equality and diversity. We observed staff treating everyone with respect. The staff also worked in ways that promoted people’s privacy and dignity.

People’s care needs were identified and documented in care plans. These were reviewed and updated regularly. People were involved in this process and relatives were also kept informed of changes, according to the wishes of the person. People’s communication needs were considered and the home had details of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). People were referred to health care services as required and staff had good relationships with health care professionals. The home provided end of life and we saw positive comments received from bereaved relatives, about the care provided at this time.

People told us they were happy with the food. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and there were systems in place to ensure people’s hydration needs were met.

There was an activity programme in place. This included music, poetry and flower arranging. The activity programme was under review and staff hours had been adjusted to enable more activities during the day. The manager was also exploring ways to enable more visits and activities, outside of the home and had organised a trip to the local pier.

There was a complaints procedure and people told us they felt able and supported to raise any concerns with the staff. There was also a system in place for monitoring any accidents or incidents within the home. These were reviewed, to determine if any actions were required, to prevent future incidents. Relatives were informed of any incidents and any actions taken, in compliance with the Duty of Candour. The Duty of Candour is a regulation that all providers must adhere to. Under the Duty of Candour providers must be open and transparent and it sets out specific guidelines providers must follow if things go wrong with care and treatment.

There was a comprehensive system of policies and procedures. There was also a range of audits which were completed regularly. There was a quality assurance system in place, which aimed to ensure high standards of care were maintained.

There was a positive culture within the home and people felt able to approach the management with any concerns. There were regular resident and staff meetings, which were well attended. The care team worked well together and felt able to discuss any concerns with the management.