Drovers House

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.

Date of inspection: 8th to 11th June 2026.

Drovers House is a residential care home for up to 75 people, including younger and older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 66 people living in the home. The home is set over 3 floors, split into 6 households which each include personalised bathrooms, lounges, kitchenettes and dining areas. This inspection was undertaken as an aged rating, and we reviewed all 5 key questions under our single assessment framework.

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

Essential information in people’s care plans was missing, inaccurate or not reflective of their current needs. Care plans did not always identify and mitigate known risks to people. This meant staff did not always have the information required to deliver safe care and people were exposed to ongoing risks such as falls, choking and weight loss. Governance systems had not identified or addressed these issues and audits failed to detect concerns, such as gaps in risk management, environmental safety issues and inconsistent staff practice. Systems intended to monitor quality and safety were not effective, and the provider had not ensured that policies, procedures and care documentation reflected best practice or regulatory expectations. As a result, people remained at risk of avoidable harm.

Despite these failings, there was a positive, caring culture within the home.

Staff consistently described good communication across teams and told us they felt supported and confident in their roles. They spoke with pride about the care they delivered and demonstrated a strong commitment to treating people as individuals. Staff recognised the importance of people’s personal histories, preferences and identities and used this knowledge to build meaningful relationships, however, this was not consistently supported by effective systems to ensure safe or personalised care.

The activities team ensured people had opportunities for engagement that reflected their interests, through community outings, group sessions and personalised activities for those who preferred to spend time in their rooms. Staff described how taking an interest in people helped them feel ‘valued, respected and seen,’ reinforcing a culture of dignity and individuality.

Staff were trained and supported to carry out their roles effectively. They told us they received the training they needed and felt able to approach leaders for guidance. The registered manager was relatively new in post but had worked in the home previously. Staff knew them well and felt confident in their ability to respond to concerns effectively.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found during this inspection.