You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Regis House on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Regis House, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 17 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Regis House is a residential care home that provides personal care and support for up to nine people. The service consists of two homes next to each other; seven people live in one home and two people live in the next-door property.

Regis House was registered before the publication of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. However, we found that the service met these values.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm by staff who understood their responsibilities to identify and report any signs of potential abuse. We saw that concerns were taken seriously and investigated thoroughly to ensure lessons were learnt. Risks associated with people’s care and support were managed safely. People received their medicines when needed and there were suitable arrangements in place in relation to the safe administration, recording and storage of medicines. There were enough suitably recruited staff to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were supported to have a varied and healthy diet and to access other professionals to maintain good health. Staff received training and support to meet the needs of people at the service and were supported and encouraged to develop their skills.

People were happy in the company of staff and had formed positive, caring relationships. Staff were kind and caring, understood how people communicated and supported them to make choices about their care. People’s privacy and dignity were maintained.

People had care and support provided which met their preferences and were involved with activities that interested them. People knew how to raise a complaint and were confident their concern would be addressed. People were able to express their views about their future care.

There were suitable systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. These were monitored by the registered manager to ensure any improvements needed were made in a timely way. The staff listened to the views of people using the service and their relatives to make improvements in areas such as the environment and activities.

Rating at last inspection: Good (last report published February 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection carried out on 27 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Our inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 January 2016.

The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to seven people. At the time of our inspection seven people lived at the home. People lived with a learning disability and/or other related needs.

The home had been taken over by a new provider. This was their first inspection since being registered with us in 2014.

The previous manager had recently de-registered and a new manager told us that they were in the process of applying to be the registered manager. It is a legal requirement that a registered manager is 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.

The provider was not meeting all legal requirements as they had not notified us of five Deprivation of Liberty Safeguardings (DoLS) approvals as they are required to do.

Quality monitoring systems were in place but had not identified that some processes and records needed a review.

The staff had received training on procedures they should follow to ensure the risk of harm and/or abuse was reduced.

The staff had been trained to manage medicines safely. Medicines were given to people as they had been prescribed.

Helpful and kind staff were provided in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs.

The recruitment processes the provider followed ensured that unsuitable staff was not employed.

Staff received induction training and the day to day support and guidance they needed to ensure they met people’s needs and kept them safe.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This ensured that people received care in line with their best interests and would not be unlawfully restricted.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their care. If they were unable to their relatives were involved in how their care was planned and delivered.

Staff supported people with their nutrition and dietary needs to prevent malnutrition and dehydration.

People received assessments and/or treatment when it was needed from a range of health care professionals which helped to prevent deterioration of their health and well-being.

People were offered and enabled to engage in recreational activities that they enjoyed and met their preferred needs.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints if they had a need.

People, their relatives, and staff felt that the quality of service was good.