Hesslewood House Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 17 September 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 27 August 2025 to 28 August 2025.

Hesslewood House Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 66 people, some of whom live with dementia. There were 63 people living at the service on the day we visited.

This was the first inspection since the new provider registered in January 2024.

People were protected from the risk of harm through safeguarding systems and appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) submissions, which were tracked and monitored. Accidents and incidents were managed and reviewed, with learning shared across the staff team. Risks were assessed and mitigated, although monitoring and recording of these was not always consistent. Environmental and equipment checks were carried out, but some identified risks were not actioned promptly. A refurbishment programme was underway, with some dementia-friendly adaptations in place, although signage could be improved to support people with orientation.

Staff were recruited safely and received induction, training and supervision. Staffing vacancies had impacted the service but were in the process of being filled. The environment was clean and PPE was used appropriately, although cleaning schedules had not been consistently completed recently.

Medicines were administered safely, but some practices did not reflect best practice. People's needs were assessed and preferences recorded, though care delivery records lacked clarity and consistency. It was not always evident that care was delivered in line with best practice, particularly in areas such as nutrition, continence, and behaviour support.

Staff communicated well with each other and partner organisations. Handover processes were in place. People’s health and daily needs were met, but inconsistent monitoring and recording meant assurance could not always be confirmed. Consent was sought appropriately, and best interest decisions were made where required.

People were treated as individuals, with personal, cultural, and religious needs respected. Independence, privacy and dignity were promoted. Meaningful activities were available, though some people experienced periods without interaction. Staff were generally attentive, but daily notes did not always reflect interactions or care offered.

Feedback about the service was positive. Care plans were person-centred and reflected individual needs. Additional support, such as 1:1 care, was provided, though oversight of this was lacking. Communication needs were well documented, and accessible information was shared with people and relatives.

People, relatives and professionals were involved in service development through meetings and feedback mechanisms, including ‘you said, we did’ responses. Future planning was supported and preferences understood.

The new provider had a clear vision for care delivery, and the home had embraced the ‘Strong Life’ culture, where everyone has a life worth celebrating. Senior managers visited regularly and staff felt supported. Staff were encouraged to speak up and diversity was celebrated.

Audits and checks were in place and completed thoroughly by senior managers. The service worked closely with community organisations and promoted access to the wider community.