Scotch Dyke Residential Home

Who the service is for

This is a service for older people; they also support people living with dementia.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 16 and 18 June 2026 to confirm that the previous rating of good remains accurate. Where we found practice has continued to meet a good standard, we have not reported in detail on these areas and have focused our findings on any areas where improvement was needed or where exceptional practice was found.

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

There was a culture of learning across the service, incidents and near misses were investigated appropriately. For example, learning from medicine errors resulted in clear action taken, such as, additional training and competency assessments to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Staff understood types of abuse and safeguarding processes, they described how they would escalate concerns appropriately. A staff member told us, “I would report any concerns to my line manager and if I had to go externally, the nearest local safeguarding team.”

Risk management supported people’s independence. For example, a person remained able to enjoy the garden independently following a physiotherapy assessment and suggested walking aids. Where people required aids and adaptations such as hoists or catheters, risk assessments were completed to promote their safety.

People were supported with their medicines in a person-centred way and in line with national guidance. Protocols were in place for people who required medicines on a ‘when required’ basis, we identified a protocol required updating, however, staff were aware of the change of medicine consistency. We spoke with the registered manager who advised they would arrange a review.

Staff were inducted, trained and had their competency assessed before being able to support people. Staff told us they were given chances to increase their knowledge, one said, “There are always opportunities to access more training, for example I wanted to do my level 3 in health and social care a few years ago, when taking this to my manager they were in full support and helped me to apply and supported me throughout the process to achieve my level 3.” There were enough staff to support people, they were recruited safely and received ongoing supervision.

Scotch Dyke Residential Home was clean and well maintained. Equipment was serviced and safety checks were regularly completed. However, we identified one narrow window which did not have a restrictor in place, we raised this with the registered manager who took immediate action.

Pre-admission assessments were completed with people and their relatives; professional input was sought when applicable to ensure a thorough understanding of people’s needs. Nationally recognised assessment tools were used to establish potential risks, such as, nutrition and skin integrity. Care plans were developed based on the assessments and staff supported people in accordance with the planned care.

Staff worked collaboratively with professionals to promote positive outcomes for people, for example, a person was able to manage their blood sugar levels with staff and professional support. Monitoring systems, including fluid charts, food intake records and behavioural observations, were reviewed regularly to ensure people’s needs were met and risks were identified promptly. The registered manager told us how they had worked with staff to improve record keeping. They said, “A lesson learned was that small gaps in documentation can significantly impact care delivery. Something I say to the team is ‘if it’s not documented, it’s not done’. As a result, I introduced more frequent checks and clear guidance for staff. Since these changes, records are more consistent, giving us greater confidence that care needs are being accurately reflected.”

People were supported by staff who demonstrated kindness, respect and a good understanding of their needs. We observed positive, person-centred interactions, with staff promoting dignity through respectful communication and by supporting people to make choices about their care and daily routines. People maintained independence where possible and had access to meaningful individual and group activities and social opportunities inside and outside of the service. Staff spoke warmly about the people they supported and gave examples of different activities they had delivered. A staff member told us, “All the carers bring different activities, nothing is set in stone, we go along with what the residents (people) want. In the summer we take them out for walks and get a massive gazebo and sit and do a quiz and some reminiscing.”

Staff were responsive to people’s preferences and needs. Care plans reflected people’s histories, preferences and communication needs. Staff knew people very well and told us details such as who and what was important to them. People’s bedrooms were personalised to their taste and people were supported to express their individuality through their appearance.

Systems were in place to gather people’s feedback through surveys and ongoing discussions, monthly satisfaction surveys were completed to ensure people enjoyed the food, activities and support in general. Staff worked in partnership with external services to ensure continuity of care and positive outcomes for people.

There was an open and positive culture in the service; all people, their relatives and staff expressed confidence in the registered manager. Staff told us they were proud to work at the service, some comments included, “I love it there, I just love it. It’s a happy place in general. We have a good staff team with lots of different strengths. We have a nice bunch of residents (people); everyone is up for a lot of fun. I really look up to [registered manager], there is nothing they do not know and are patient with me.” And, “[Registered manager] is very supportive, if anything comes up [registered manager] will joke with us and they show us, they have the patience of a saint.”

Regular audits were completed across areas including medicines, incidents, and infection prevention and control. Findings from audits and feedback were used to identify learning and drive improvement. The registered manager ensured to keep up to date with changes in practices and legislation. They told us how they were supported by the provider who was happy to update equipment or make changes to benefit people. The registered manager told us, “The provider is lovely, I don’t have a budget.” We saw that upgrades had happened around the service and additional entertainment sought based on feedback from people, relatives and from external audits.