Lindly House Care Home

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

Date of inspection was 15 January 2026. Lindly House is a care home providing accommodation and support for up to 10 people. At the time of our inspection there were 8 people using the service. This inspection was undertaken in response to concerns raised with the Care Quality Commission about poor care provision at Lindly House.

At the last inspection, the service was rated good in all areas. At this assessment the service is rated as requires improvement. We completed an assessment looking at all quality statements as this was the service’s first assessment under the single assessment framework.

The provider had not kept up to date with relevant legislation. Improvements were required to the environment to ensure it was safe, and risk assessments were not always followed to prevent harm from occurring. However, the environment was homely and welcoming.

The provider’s systems to monitor and continually improve the service had not been effective in ensuring everyone using the service received safe and effective care.

Staff were knowledgeable and understood their responsibilities when raising safeguarding concerns. They had received appropriate training and felt supported by the management team. However, there were insufficient staff during night-time hours to ensure people’s safety in the event of an emergency. Medicines and infection prevention and control were managed safely, and the environment was clean and homely.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. However, people were not always supported to make choices about their care, and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not consistently applied.

Management and staff were kind and caring and supported people to take part in activities they enjoyed. Food was plentiful, and people were offered meal choices in line with their preferences.

The provider supported people to access healthcare professionals when required. However, not all people experienced equal opportunities due to inconsistent support in respecting their decisions, choices, and sensory needs. People nearing the end of life had plans in place, although some experienced limited support when planning for their future care.

Staff felt confident to raise concerns and the provider fostered a workforce that reflected a range of backgrounds and experiences. The registered manager was experienced and focused on meeting people’s needs. However, the provider’s oversight systems had not been effective in identifying and driving improvements, resulting in people not always receiving safe and effective care.