Romney House

Updated 19 February 2026

Date of Assessment: 24 February, 5 and 6 March 2026 to 19 March 2026. The service is a residential service providing support to older people living with dementia, physical disabilities and sensory impairment.

This inspection was undertaken in response to an anonymous concern about care planning, the safe administration of medicines and the environment.

Risks were not being properly identified, assessed or mitigated and accidents and incidents were not always properly investigated. Systems did not enable lessons to be learnt, and medicines were not always safely managed. Not all areas of the environment were safe, including hot surfaces and lack of window restrictors. Safe procedures for staff recruitment were not always followed. Good infection control practice was not always promoted. Care planning was not person-centred or reflective of people’s needs.

Audits were not effective as shortfalls were not being identified. Call bell response times and night-time care provision were not being monitored. Information was not analysed to identify patterns and trends, which could be used to develop the service.

The service was homely, and people were supported by a consistent staff team, who knew them well. They were encouraged to lead healthier lives and their rights to choice and independence were promoted. Good relationships had been established with various health and social care providers. They visited regularly to meet people’s health care needs and give advice where required.

Leaders were passionate about the service and ensuring people received a good standard of care. They regularly worked alongside staff and covered at times of staff sickness and annual leave.

We identified 2 breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

Updated 19 February 2026

People told us they were happy at the home, but not all felt safe, all the time. They attributed this to some staff being abrupt and not undertaking support as requested. There was mixed feedback about the staff. This included, “Some [carers] especially in the night are not that nice” and “The girls [carers] are alright, the staff are lovely here”.

People told us there were not always enough staff to support them effectively. This was particularly in the late afternoon and evening. People told us staff supported them with their mobility and helped them minimise their risk of falling. They said they were able to see their GP and other health professionals when needed and had no concerns about the administration of their medicines. People were complimentary about the cleanliness of the home.

People were encouraged to make decisions and follow their own routines. Staff asked for consent before undertaking any interventions, and wishes were respected. People’s rights to privacy and dignity were promoted, and visitors were encouraged. People enjoyed the social activities on offer and were supported to follow their religious preferences. People enjoyed their meals, including the variety and choice available. They knew how to raise a concern if needed.