Adelaide House Nursing Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 22 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

Adelaide House Nursing Home is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 40 people. There were 29 people using the service at the time of our inspection. Support was delivered over 3 floors. There was a communal area on the ground floor and a communal garden which was accessible for people.

Who the service is for

The service supports older people including people living with dementia and people with physical needs.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 30 June 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided. A relative said, “I wouldn’t have a problem recommending anyone to come here. What I have seen has been fantastic and the carers are attentive.” We observed kind, respectful and patient interactions between staff and people throughout the day. Staff supported people safely with mobility and equipment. Medicines were managed safely, with good systems in place, strong clinical oversight and effective involvement from GPs and other health professionals. The environment was clean, well maintained and free from hazards, with appropriate safety checks completed and equipment in good order. Staffing levels were stable. When agency staff were required, the provider sought to use familiar workers to promote continuity of care. Staff described feeling well supported by visible and approachable leaders.

Care plans were detailed, precise and person centred. Risk assessments were in place and appropriate. The home used a ‘resident of the day’ process to review an individual’s care and check that their care plan continued to reflect their needs and preferences. Staff were able to explain processes and how they would highlight concerns. Staff spoke highly of the service and felt supported by management. A staff member said, “They [management] are a good listener, and their door is always open.” We observed managers maintaining a visible presence in the home and supporting staff in the delivery of care.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Overall, the home provided a safe and caring environment for people and staff. There was a community feel to the home with people conversing. Most people would spend their day in the communal lounge or making use of the garden but the service also respected peoples wishes if they wanted to remain in their rooms.