Philip Cussins House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 2 April 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Philip Cussins House provides accommodation with personal care for up to 26 people. 20 people were living at the home when we visited, some of whom were living with dementia. We visited the home on 13 February 2026. This unannounced assessment was triggered due to the age of the current rating for the home. At this inspection the provider had breached regulation relating to good governance. Although, we found no evidence this had adversely impacted on people using the service.

The home did not have a registered manager, as they had recently retired. Although interim management arrangements were in place, until a new manager was employed, there was no evidence of an effective handover. The provider did not have a structured approach to quality assurance and had not given the interim manager guidance on their expectations of them. Quality assurance audits and checks were not robust and had not been completed recently. Some information we requested was either not available or very out of date.

The provider had not been proactive in ensuring the most recent fire risk assessment had been completed when it was due. Health and safety checks also identified an on-going defect with afire extinguisher. This issue remained outstanding and there was no record of action taken to address this.

Care plans were very brief and lacked personalisation. Staff told us they had not been trained to use the electronic care planning system or on how to write person-centred care plans. The provider was unable to provide a training matrix to confirm what training staff had completed.

Although individual incidents and accidents were investigated, there was no in-depth analysis to identify trends and learn lessons.

Medicines were not always managed safely, especially relating to storage and evidencing time critical medicines were administered on time. Recording of ‘when required’ medicines was inconsistent and guidance not in place for all ‘when required’ medicines.