Provence House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 25 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 14 January 2026 to 23 January 2026.

Provence House is a residential care home providing support to up to 72 people, including people who live with dementia. There were 36 people living at the home at the time of the inspection; spread between 2 of 3 possible units.

This was the first inspection for this service since it started providing a regulated activity to people in April 2024.

Staff interactions with people were kind, committed and compassionate. However, we identified some weakness in how the home was managed effectively. This had the potential to affect people’s safety, timeliness of support and their ability to exercise choice and control over some aspects of their lives.

The provider was in breach of legal regulations relating to the submission of statutory notifications and good governance. Although staff made appropriate safeguarding referrals to the local authority, the registered manager had not submitted notifications of abuse to CQC as required.

There was a caring atmosphere throughout the home. People described staff as “very kind” and “always willing to help”. We observed warm and respectful interactions between staff and people. Staff always promoted dignity during personal care and made every effort to understand people’s histories, preferences and what mattered to them. Activities and one‑to‑one support reflected people’s individual interests, and relatives told us staff helped people and them feel at home.

There were some inconsistencies in staffing levels and variable communication between shifts. Several people described long waits for support, particularly when they asked for support with toileting. A lack of appropriate monitoring meant this was not always addressed. Observations of dining experiences showed some inconsistency in people’s experience. Some people were not routinely offered choices or, for example, second portions. Although, the home had been designed to accommodate innovative dementia-friendly standards, not all areas supported independence. For example, people living with dementia did not always have accessible information, such as pictorial menus or signage to support their independence when moving around the home.

Some people’s care plans and risk assessments were incomplete. This included missing bedrail assessments, unclear hoisting guidance, outdated mobility plans and incomplete best‑interest decisions. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) oversight was inconsistent, and key information was missing or conflicting across documents. However, people told us they felt very safe and secure.

Staff described senior leaders as approachable, but some staff also told us concerns were often raised “but nothing changes”. People, relatives and staff all commented about the lack of visibility of the registered manager.

Fire drills, care plan audits, call bell monitoring and device checks were not always regularly or reliably completed. The provider had plans to introduce new systems to improve quality. However, these were early in development and had not yet been fully embedded. It was unclear how learning from incidents was consistently identified and used to improve practice, and audits often contained errors or lacked clarity in how they were followed up. Since the inspection the provider has worked responsively to ensure progress has been made in these areas.

The service worked positively with external professionals. GPs, district nurses and therapists reported constructive relationships and good communication during clinical rounds. People were supported to attend appointments, maintain links with the community and access therapies that enhanced their wellbeing. Staff were proud of their work and spoke positively about the people they supported. However, some told us staffing pressures affected their wellbeing and, on occasion, their ability to provide timely care.

People experienced inclusive, respectful interactions, and there was no evidence of discriminatory practice. Adjustments were in place to support access to care, and people and relatives were involved in discussions about future planning, including end‑of‑life arrangements, all of which were handled compassionately and sensitively.

There were many positive aspects of care, particularly around staff kindness, people’s health support and how the service worked collaboratively with external partnerships.