• Care Home
  • Care home

Hawthorn Lodge Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Beckhampton Road, Bestwood Park, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 5LF (0115) 967 6735

Provided and run by:
Regal Care Trading Ltd

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

Assessment report published 21 July 2026

Ratings

  • Overall

    Requires improvement

  • Safe

    Requires improvement

  • Effective

    Requires improvement

  • Caring

    Requires improvement

  • Responsive

    Requires improvement

  • Well-led

    Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of Assessment: 12 May 2026. The service is a residential care home providing support to older people, some of whom live with dementia and physical disabilities. At the time of our assessment, there were 39 people being supported with their care needs. The service is registered to support a maximum of 60 people.

Hawthorn Lodge was last rated Requires Improvement (report published 24 December 2024). This assessment has been completed following the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) new approach to assessment.

The provider had changed the manager since our last inspection. The manager showed a good

understanding of the challenges they faced, and they were in turn supported by the provider’s

regional manager.

Records showed the previous management team had not reported or investigated incidents thoroughly to ensure people were protected and kept safe. We raised this with the provider and new management team. They ensured this information was reviewed and shared with the CQC and relevant partner agencies as required.

People were not fully involved in assessments of their needs. Staff had not updated care plans to take account of changes in people’s care and health needs. People were not always supported to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff did not work well with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes. People’s health was not effectively monitored to support healthy living. Staff did not ensure people understood their care and treatment to support them to give informed consent. Staff did not always ensure people were enabled to give informed consent and decisions were taken in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. People were not always confident their privacy and dignity were being upheld. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends.

The provider ensured staff were trained and supported to progress in the organisation.

The provider and management team had a service improvement plan in place, to address the previous lack of oversight and quality monitoring in place at the service. This plan required fully embedding to ensure the service was a safe, well-maintained place for people. We will review the actions taken by the provider at our next assessment.

At our previous assessment, we found the provider was in breach of regulations related to safe care and treatment, consent, person-centred care and governance. At this assessment, although we found improvements had been made in consent, the provider remained in breach of regulations related to person-centred care, safe care and treatment and governance.

People's experience of this service

While people expressed general satisfaction with their care and treatment, our assessment found elements of care did not meet the expected standards. The cleanliness and environment of the service did not support all people with their identified levels of need.

People did not always feel safe with staff or were fully involved in planning their care. People were not always fully respected as individuals. They also said the service lacked provision of interesting activities to keep people physically and mentally active. People were not always effectively supported with their fluid and dietary needs by the staff team.

People felt able to complain, however, they could not be confident actions would be taken, and improvements would be made. Some people could not directly tell us about their experience, where this was the case, we observed interactions between people and staff. This approach showed people were not always effectively supported. People felt their preferences and wishes were not always fully respected. Staff did not always respond to people in a timely way, for example, when they used their call bell to request support.