Rated Care Homes

Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 8 ratings

    Its last inspection improved it from Requires improvement to Good.

  • This month

    The latest rating was published.

  • 250 of 309

    rated care homes in West Sussex are rated Good, like this one.

Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home: inspection record

Care home, 19 beds, West Sussex

Rated Good in October 2026, up from Requires improvement.

Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Walcott House Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Burlington Nursing Home Good, 0.2 miles away
  3. RI
    Aronel Cottage Care Home Limited Requires improvement, 0.2 miles away
  4. G
    Newhaven Good, 0.2 miles away
  5. G
    Aldersmead Care Home Good, 0.2 miles away

See all care homes in West Sussex

See all care homes in Bognor Regis

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 30 October 2026 (assessment visit 14 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 27 August to 10 September 2026.

Saxby Lodge is a residential care home providing the regulated activity of accommodation with personalcare for up to 19 people. People had a range of care needs including frailty of age and people living withdementia. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people using the service. Accommodation was overtwo floors in one adapted building.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

The inspection was undertaken to follow up on previous warning notices issued to the provider. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The provider had made significant improvements to incident reporting, risk management, staffing and medicines management. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities, people’s medicines were managed safely, and there were enough suitably trained and recruited staff to meet people’s needs. The home was clean, and effective infection prevention and control practices were followed. However, some environmental risks had not been identified or fully mitigated through the provider’s own checks, including unsecured service areas and maintenance concerns. Leaders acted promptly when these were raised, but further work was required to ensure environmental monitoring was consistently effective.

People’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes. Their health, care, communication and wellbeing needs were thoroughly assessed, and care was delivered in line with evidence-based guidance. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals and made timely referrals when people required additional support. People received a varied diet and spoke positively about the quality and choice of food. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to reflect changing needs, and staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people lacked capacity, decision-specific assessments and best-interest processes were completed appropriately.

People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, understood their individual preferences and communicated with them in ways they could understand. People, relatives and professionals consistently described staff as caring, attentive and approachable, and our observations showed positive and natural interactions. Staff responded promptly when people needed support and promoted a comfortable, inclusive environment. However, people did not always have sufficient choice or opportunity to participate in meaningful daily activities. Although community outings and special events had increased, the range and quality of routine activities did not consistently meet everyone’s interests and abilities.

People received personalised care that reflected their physical, emotional and mental health needs. Care plans contained clear guidance for staff, and people and their relatives were involved in decisions about care and treatment. People were supported to raise concerns, and feedback was gathered through surveys, meetings and informal discussions. People’s equality needs and future wishes were considered within care planning, including preferences for emergency and end-of-life care.

The service was more consistently managed, and leaders had driven significant improvements in the quality and safety of care. People, relatives and staff described the registered manager as visible, approachable and responsive. Staff felt able to speak up and reported improved training, communication and support. Leaders promoted an open, inclusive culture and worked effectively with external partners. Governance and oversight systems had been strengthened, resulting in improvements to incident reporting, risk management and staff practice. However, these systems were not yet fully embedded or consistently effective, as some environmental and maintenance risks had not been identified through internal monitoring. Leaders responded promptly to these concerns, but sustained oversight was required to ensure improvements were maintained and all risks were identified and addressed.

  1. Safe

    Good

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  2. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Alison Ayres
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

5 inspection reports, latest 19 July 2023. Latest assessment published 30 October 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
12463224 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from West Sussex County Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 19 beds at Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home.
When was Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home was published on 30 October 2026.
Who runs Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home?
Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home is run by Saxby Care Ltd.
What is Saxby Lodge Residential Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 30 October 2026.

Contact

Phone
01243 210796
Address
124 Victoria Drive, Bognor Regis, PO21 2EJ Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Walcott House Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Burlington Nursing Home Good, 0.2 miles away
  3. RI
    Aronel Cottage Care Home Limited Requires improvement, 0.2 miles away
  4. G
    Newhaven Good, 0.2 miles away
  5. G
    Aldersmead Care Home Good, 0.2 miles away

See all care homes in West Sussex

See all care homes in Bognor Regis