Mr & Mrs A H Akbarally

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 21 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried out this assessment on 6 July and 10 July 2026.

Before our assessment, we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR), which is an annual return that adult social care providers submit to CQC. The PIR includes information about how the service is performing, changes that have been made, and how the provider ensures the service is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. We found the service remained good and that people received safe and effective care which was responsive to their individual needs.

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 2005 and that DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice and control over their lives.

Staff were available when people needed them, including at night. Staffing levels were adjusted if people’s needs changed. For example, when one person experienced a decline in their mobility, a risk assessment identified that 2 staff were required to provide care safely while maintaining the person’s dignity and comfort.

The PIR outlined how the provider ensured staffing levels were appropriate, stating, ‘Our staffing levels are carefully planned to meet [people’s] individual and changing needs, with full consideration of their age, disability, language, cultural preferences, and personal care requirements.’

Staff were recruited safely and were provided with the induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles. Staff completed mandatory training and regular refresher courses in addition to training relevant to people’s individual needs.

Staff kept people safe while promoting their independence. People were protected from abuse, neglect and avoidable harm because staff understood safeguarding procedures, responded appropriately to concerns and worked effectively with partner agencies.

People lived in a safe, clean environment. The provider carried out regular health and safety checks to ensure the environment and equipment were safe and appropriately maintained. People’s medicines were managed safely and reviewed regularly.

Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing effectively and took action when necessary to ensure the best outcomes for people. Staff kept people’s needs under review, including their health, emotional, and communication needs.

The registered manager led by example in their approach to supporting people, demonstrating a compassionate and person-centred approach to care. The registered manager was committed to ensuring people were at the heart of decision-making and were supported to achieve the best possible quality of life.

The provider’s governance systems helped ensure people received safe, high-quality care that reflected their needs and preferences. People who lived at the home and their families were encouraged to give feedback about the care and support provided, which the provider used to improve the service. The provider had established effective working relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care and implemented any guidance they recommended.