The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Amberley House Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

The Crescent, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3ES (01872) 271921

Provided and run by:
Minster Care Management Limited

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

We served 3 warning notices on Minster Care Management Limited on 29 April 2026 for failing to meet the regulations related to the safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing at Amberley House Care Home.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 15 April - 21 April 2026. The service is a nursing home providing support for up to 35 older people some of whom may be living with dementia.

Reviews of people’s needs and risk assessments were not up to date and did not reflect changes in circumstances. The provider did not effectively assess and manage risks to people’s health and safety. Care plans, risk assessments and handover information contained conflicting and inaccurate information and did not give clear guidance for staff. This meant people were not properly involved in managing risks, and staff were not directed to provide care safely.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not always followed to ensure people were not restricted unlawfully. Deprivation of liberty safeguards applications had been submitted for some people, however monitoring of authorised applications was not effective.

Care and treatment were not always delivered in a person centred way, people who were unable to consent to some aspects of their care did not have a detailed care plan to direct staff on how to meet their needs. For example, detailing how staff should respond if a person refused to be repositioned.

During the assessment we observed most areas of the service were clean, however the dining room was cluttered and the fridge required cleaning. Staff did not always follow the provider’s infection prevention and control policy. Personal protective equipment and adequate hand washing was not always used to ensure the spread of infection was reduced.

We found the skill mix of staff varied and at times there was not enough staff to meet the needs of people. The service used agency staff to cover sickness, annual leave and staff vacancies. New members of staff were not always supervised by an experienced member of staff.

Medication records were not completed in full, in line with the provider’s medication policy. Stock amounts were not always recorded and medication to be given ‘as required’ was not always documented to have been offered, taken or refused. This meant people may not have received medication as prescribed.

Systems and processes to monitor the service were ineffective. Audits were not always acted upon when gaps were found, and other areas of the service were not audited to continuously ensure the needs of people were being met. Systems for reviewing and embedding learning were ineffective, meaning lessons from incidents were not consistently applied or sustained.

Processes and systems to hold money for people were effective and all transactions were clearly recorded and audited.

We identified breaches of regulations in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, management of the service and staffing.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to some of the concerns found at this assessment.

3 February 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Amberley House Care Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 30 older people. On the morning of our inspection, 21 people were using the service with an admission planned for the afternoon. The service is a detached property with accommodation provided on three levels, a lift provides wheelchair access to levels and stair lifts are also provided.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff were following current infection prevention and control guidance to help people to stay safe. Staff were using personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately during our inspection. The service had good stocks of PPE and this equipment was readily available to staff throughout the service. All staff had received training on the appropriate use of PPE and additional training on infection control practices and COVID 19. The registered manager regularly worked alongside care staff and ensured best infection control practices were followed.

The service has procured a door entry system that remotely checked visitor’s temperature on arrival and provided an audible reminder to don face masks before entering the building.

On the day of our inspection there was a national lock down in place and the service was closed to regular visitors. There were arrangements in place to enable relatives to safely visit people in their own rooms at the end of their lives.

When visits were permitted the service had developed appropriate procedures for visits to be completed as safely as possible. Visitors were by appointment only and used a separate entrance. A clear plastic screen and appropriate PPE were used to manage infection control risks associated with indoor visits. During the summer and periods of fine weather, outdoor visit had been facilitated on the service’s veranda. During the pandemic improvements had been made to the service’s internet connectivity and WIFI internet access was now available from all bedrooms. People were regularly supported to make video and telephone calls to friends and family.

The service was clean and well maintained. New, easily cleaned, flooring had been installed in most areas of the home since our last inspection and sluices were now available on each level of the service.

Housekeeping staff were on duty every day and there were appropriate cleaning procedures in place. High contact areas were cleaned regularly, and night staff had also taken on additional cleaning responsibilities.

Infection control policies and procedures had been reviewed and updated in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and regular infection control audits had been completed. The registered manager had plans in place detailing how any outbreak of the infection would be managed.

Admission procedures were safe and everyone returning from hospital or moving into the service was cared for in isolation for two weeks. Regular testing of both staff and people who used the service was completed in accordance with current guidance.

The registered manager maintained regular communication with people, staff and relatives to ensure everyone understood why precautions were being taken, and how to keep people safe.

23 October 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Amberley House Care Home on 23 October 2018. Amberley House is a ‘care home’ that provides nursing care for a maximum of 26 adults. 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. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people living at the service.

The building is a detached house over three floors. Stairs in the service had stair lifts to support people, with mobility problems, to access all floors. A passenger lift had recently been installed to further support people with mobility needs. At the time of the inspection work to upgrade all areas of the premises were taking place.

This was the first inspection for the service since it re-registered as a new legal entity in November 2017.

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During the inspection we spent time in the shared living area to observe staff interaction with people and how people responded to the care and support provided. We saw that people were relaxed and comfortable with staff, and had no hesitation in asking for help from them. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care they received and believed it was a safe environment. Comments included, “You can come and go as you please”, “The staff manage everything and there have not been any problems” and “I have no complaints. I was told it was a good place and it is.”

Care records were personalised to the individual and detailed how people wished to be supported. They contained accurate and up to date information to enable staff to provide the agreed care and support for people. Risks were clearly identified and included guidance for staff on the actions they should take to minimise any risk of harm. Risks in relation people’s skin care and nutrition were being effectively monitored.

People were supported to access to healthcare services such as occupational therapists, GPs, chiropodists, community nurses and dentists. Staff enabled people to eat a healthy and varied diet. Comments from people about their meals included, “The food is good” , “It’s very nice food” and “We have lots of choice and lots to drink.”

Management and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). 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 service supported this practice.

Staff were supported in their roles by a system of induction, training, one-to-one supervision and appraisals. Some staff supervisions had fallen behind and there was a plan in place to rectify this within four weeks of the inspection. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty and staffing levels were adjusted to meet people's changing needs and wishes. Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to help ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge.

There were safe arrangements were in place for administration of medicines. People were supported to take their medicines at the right time by staff who had been appropriately trained and Medicine Administration Records (MARS) were completed appropriately.

People were able to take part in a range of group and individual activities. These included, craft work, themed events and board games. In addition, there were visits by external entertainers and trips out. Staff supported people to keep in touch with family and friends and people told us their friends and family were able to visit at any time.

There was a management structure in the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Staff had a positive attitude and the management team provided strong and supportive leadership.

People and their families were given information about how to complain and details of the complaints procedure were displayed in the service. Where complaints had been received these had been well managed and effectively resolved. The service sought the views of people, families, staff and other professionals and used feedback received to improve the quality of the service provided. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.