Wellington House Nursing Home

The service supports older people and people living with physical disabilities.

We carried out this assessment on 13 and 18 August 2026.

This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People were supported by consistent staff who had the skills and knowledge to be able to support them safely. There was enough staff to support people safely and people had access to call bells and staff responded promptly where people requested support. Robust recruitment processes were in place, and staff received a good induction and ongoing training and supervision. Care plans provided clear guidance to staff and risks in relation to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. There were clear processes in place to monitor and report safeguarding events and staff had a good understanding of how to report abuse or poor care. 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. This was reflected in our observations and feedback from staff and people. The service was well maintained, homely and clean with a safe and attractive accessible garden area. Medicines were managed safely and there were organised and safe systems in place.

People needs were robustly assessed before they started using the service. People’s capacity was assessed and where people lacked capacity detailed best interest assessments had been completed to fully consider any restrictions. Best practice guidance was followed to assess and monitor people’s health, including their mobility and skin integrity. We found some improvements were required in relation to the recording of people’s nutritional and fluid intake. However, we had no concerns people were not receiving a high-quality choice of meals, snacks and drinks.

We observed staff were caring, kind and compassionate and knew people very well. Staff routinely promoted people’s independence and fully respected their privacy and dignity. We observed consistently gentle interactions between staff and people and staff demonstrated a pride in providing high quality care and support. Comments included, “I love making people smile and making their day better. It is the little things that make a difference.”

People received care and support which was individualised and person-centred. People’s care was individually tailored to their needs to ensure good outcomes. People’s bedrooms were personalised and maintained in the way they wanted. There was a good range of activities and social events available, including opportunities for individuals. The provider actively listened to the views of people, relatives and staff and there were good processes which evidenced feedback was listened and responded to. A recent survey highlighted excellent feedback from people and relatives. Staff confirmed there was good communication through meetings and handovers.

There was a strong and consistent positive culture in the home. Throughout our assessment the atmosphere was calm and inclusive, and we observed staff in all roles working professionally and calmly as a team. Comments from staff included, “Teamwork is very good. One part cannot work well without the other.” A range of audits and checks were in place, and action was taken where any shortfalls were identified. Staff told us the provider and registered manager were visible, approachable and responsive and the service was well managed. There was a focus on ongoing improvement and ensuring genuine and fulfilling outcomes for people who used the service.