Darley Hall Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 3 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

Darley Hall Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 22 people. At the time of the visit, 18 people were living at the service. The service is based over 3 floors, has large open plan communal areas and has a lift to access all floors.

Who the service is for

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

Our view of the service

We carried out this assessment from 17 June 2026 to 23 June 2026. This service was previously rated 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.

The provider had instilled a learning culture within the home and encouraged feedback from people, their relatives, and staff. For example, the electronic signing in system had a feedback prompt when people signed out as they left and the provider used any feedback for a 'you said, we did' system of making improvements. One staff member told us, "If we have a problem, the managers sort it out, they take time to listen."

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people were involved in the process. Staff understood and managed risk while supporting people to take part in activities. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. The environment was clean, and well maintained inside and outside the home, with appropriate safety checks completed. Medicines were managed safely across the home, with good systems in place, clinical oversight and effective involvement from GPs and other health professionals. Where we found issues relating to the environment and minor issues with the kitchen and labelling of body creams and eye drops, the provider was receptive to our feedback and ensured our concerns were actioned swiftly.

Care plans were in place, were person centred and covered key areas of people’s needs and risks. Care was delivered by consistent staff who knew people well. This also supported staff to recognise changes in people’s needs and respond effectively. Daily notes were detailed and clear. For example, it was recorded when someone did not want to do an activity provided in the home and what activity they chose to do instead.

Staff were observed delivering patient and supportive care, assisting people at their own pace with drinks and personal needs. Staff respected people's dignity and developed warm, trusting relationships. Caring interactions and respectful communication were central to the culture. One staff member told us, "I love talking to the residents". People were encouraged to lead their lives in their chosen way and took control of decisions about their care. Care plans reflected people’s preferences, and people were supported to maintain these, with one person commenting, “I’m drinking chardonnay, it's very nice!” Independence was encouraged and supported. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. A visiting professional said, “I can’t fault them… if anyone wants anything, they are there, they show compassion.”

Care records captured life histories, religions, and any care preferences, which helped staff tailor routines, activities, and meals. The registered manager told us how they supported people to have personalised rooms and items, "You will see ornaments, picture frames, some residents want their own bedding." People were encouraged and supported to express their views and be actively involved in their care. People’s preferred communication styles were known and respected. The service demonstrated good efforts to keep people informed and engaged. This included a regularly produced newsletter, informative posters, and personalised books created with people. These initiatives supported meaningful engagement and communication. Consent was recorded in daily notes which staff checked before providing personal care. The provider described a situation where a person was not in the home, and only wanted their room cleaned whilst they were there, which they respected.

Managers were committed to providing a non-discriminatory environment for people using the service and staff. The service actively promoted a culture of inclusion and respect throughout the year, including the ‘love is love’ initiative celebrating diversity and inclusion. Staff reinforced this through badges and themed activities, with a manager stating, “We celebrate that we are all one and should be kind to one another.” This supported people with protected characteristics to feel accepted, respected, and included, enhancing their sense of belonging and emotional wellbeing.

The provider had a good learning culture. People, their relatives and staff and could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People and relatives described staff as kind, supportive and approachable. One relative said, “The home manager is very warm and welcoming.” People were protected and kept safe. The provider’s governance processes were effective at identifying areas to improve. Regular audits were completed to monitor quality and safety. The provider told us they linked in with some local care homes to share best practice.

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.