Valerie Manor

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 1 May 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 19 March to 9 April 2026.

Valerie Manor is a nursing home. Valerie Manor provides care and support for up to 23 people. At the time of the inspection, there were 16 people using the service. All were in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care.

People living at Valerie Manor were protected from harm and received care that met their assessed needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health conditions and risks, and there were effective systems in place to identify, record and respond to incidents. Staff demonstrated learning from events, and leaders maintained oversight through regular reviews and monitoring. The service had a positive safety culture, although staffing levels were not always sufficient to enable timely care, particularly during busy periods.

People received care that was effective and based on good practice. Assessments were completed prior to admission and reviewed regularly, and people’s care plans reflected their health, wellbeing and communication needs. Staff worked well with a range of health and social care professionals, enabling people to access specialist support and maintain their health. People spoke positively about the food and support with nutrition, and outcomes of people’s health and well-being were monitored by staff.

Most people experienced kind, compassionate and respectful care. Many people and relatives described staff as friendly, caring and approachable, and our observations showed staff interacting warmly with people and preserving their privacy and dignity. However, staffing pressures affected consistency, and some people felt staff were sometimes rushed, which limited the time available for meaningful interaction and compassionate engagement at all times.

People were generally treated as individuals, and care was delivered by staff who knew them well and understood what mattered to them. Opportunities for meaningful occupation and engagement were limited, particularly for people who preferred to remain in their rooms or required encouragement and one‑to‑one support. Although the service had activity planners in place showing a range of group activities and events, people told us these did not always meet their individual interests or preferences. This reduced people’s sense of independence, choice and control.

The service was responsive to people’s needs in many areas, and people and relatives were usually involved in care planning and decision‑making. There were systems to gather feedback, such as surveys and meetings, and many people felt able to raise concerns.

The service was well‑led. Leaders understood their regulatory responsibilities and had systems in place to monitor quality and manage risk. However, frequent changes in management had affected consistency, staff morale and confidence. The current manager was new in post and had begun to stabilise leadership, rebuild engagement with staff and partners, and identify priorities for improvement. Staff recognised the manager’s commitment and motivation, though time and sustained support were needed to embed a consistent, inclusive leadership culture. Leadership acted on feedback regarding activities by seeking to provide engagement to those who did not wish to participate in group activities, while a review of staffing levels was implemented.