- Care home
78 Hoylake Crescent
Assessment report published 16 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 7 July 2026
78 Hoylake Crescent is a care home for up to 4 adults with mental health needs. The service can also care for people who have a learning disability alongside their mental health needs. At the time of our assessment, 2 people were using the service. The service was not supporting any people with a learning disability.
At our last assessment, we rated the service requires improvement (published 27 November 2025). We identified breaches of legal regulations relating to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, good governance, premises and equipment and staffing. We issued a warning notice telling the provider they must make the required improvements relating to breaches of good governance. We requested an action plan from them telling us how they would make other improvements.
During this assessment, we found the provider had made improvements to the service and was no longer breaching any legal regulations.
Staff supported people with some social activities. However, these were limited and there was not much variation. People were not supported to develop skills or independence. Staff tended to do things for people rather than encourage them to do things for themselves. There was no therapeutic input to support people with their mental health recovery. We discussed these findings with the management team. They acknowledged improvements were needed. They told us they had focussed on addressing the safety concerns from the last CQC assessment. However, they said they had plans to develop the service further to better meet people’s emotional wellbeing now that safety concerns were addressed.
People lived in a safe and well-maintained home. Staff assessed risks to their safety and wellbeing. People received medicines in a safe way. There were enough suitable staff who completed training to help them understand about their roles and responsibilities.
Staff assessed and planned for people’s needs. Staff worked closely with external professionals to make sure people stayed healthy. Staff monitored changes in people’s needs.
People consented to their care and treatment. They were supported to make choices, and these were respected. Staff were kind, caring and attentive.
People had information about the service and were asked for their views. People were able to speak with managers when they needed to discuss concerns.
There were effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service. These included a range of audits. Managers investigated and acted following complaints, incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns.
Whilst the service was not currently supporting people with a learning disability, we still assessed them against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found that some of this guidance was followed, but further work was needed in other areas. For example, people were not supported to develop independence and skills and there was limited support for people to plan for the future. However, staff had undertaken relevant training. Staff promoted choice and valued decisions people made.
People's experience of this service
People were safe and generally happy at the service. However, they were not aways supported to pursue their interests or to take part in different social activities. There was no therapeutic input to help people with mental health recovery or planning for their futures. People were not supported to develop or maintain independent living skills. A person commented, “Staff do the cooking and tidy up. I used to do that where I lived in the past. But not anymore.”
People liked staff and had good relationships with them. A person told us, “They are alright. I get on with most of them. They play board games with me.” Staff were kind and attentive. People were able to speak with staff and managers if they had concerns and they felt safe at the service.
People lived in a safe, clean and well-maintained environment. They had their own bedrooms and their privacy was maintained.
Staff gave people the information they needed and supported them to make choices. People’s physical healthcare needs were monitored and met. Managers ensured staff understood these and could recognise signs of ill health. People were supported to access other healthcare services.
People’s personal care needs were met. People were given a range of suitable and nutritious food. A person told us, “They know what I like and the food is okay.”
People consented to their care and treatment. They told us their views and choices were respected. There were no restrictions and people could move around the home independently. The provider had recently improved access within the environment following the recommendations of a professional who had assessed people’s mobility needs.