Adeline House Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 25 November 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 7 October 2025 to 21 October 2025. Adeline House is a residential care home providing care and support to younger people and older people, some of whom were living with dementia. Some people living at the home were receiving nursing care. The home can accommodate up to 37 people. At the time of the assessment there were 30 people living at the home. We previously assessed the service in April 2023, and it was rated good. We assessed the service due to the length of time since our last assessment and due to concerns we had received about the home. We looked at all key questions and all quality statements. The rating has changed from good to requires improvement. The provider was in breach of regulation relating to good governance.

The provider did not always analyse accidents and incident to ensure trends and patterns were identified and practice improved. We carried out a tour of the home and found the home was predominantly clean, however, some areas of the home required attention. We also raised some issues regarding the safety of the environment. We discussed these issues with the manager who took action to address them. The provider had policies and procedures in place to ensure people were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. The provider shared information appropriately to ensure people received care and support in line with their needs. People received their medicines as prescribed, although some recording could be improved. Risks associated with people’s care were identified and plans were in place to mitigate future risks.

People’s needs were assessed and kept under review. Care plans were updated as people’s needs changed. However, people and relatives told us they would like to be more informed about their care and support. We received concerns from external professionals who told us some aspects of care could be improved. People had access to healthcare professionals. The management team supported people to meet their goals. Staff ensured they gained consent prior to delivering tasks.

People were treated with kindness and respect. We observed staff interacting with people and they were caring, although at times they were task focused. People had access to meaningful activities and took part in social interests.

Relatives told us staff understood their family members needs but were not always sure care was delivered in line with them. Information was provided to people although not always in formats which met their needs. The manager had implemented a bi-monthly newsletter to help improve communication.

Governance systems in place did not always identify areas for improvement. Some issues we raised during the assessment process were not previously identified. Systems required strengthening and embedding into practice.