Rated Care Homes

Tamar House

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 4 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 17 of 83

    rated care homes in Plymouth are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Tamar House: inspection record

Care home, 29 beds, Plymouth

Rated Requires improvement in July 2026, down from Good.

Tamar House: 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

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Down House (Good, 0.4 miles away) and Manor House (Good, 0.4 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Down House Good, 0.4 miles away
  2. G
    Manor House Good, 0.4 miles away
  3. RI
    Sunnymeade Quality Care Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away
  4. G
    The Lodge Good, 0.6 miles away
  5. G
    Kazdin Good, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Plymouth

See all care homes in Crownhill

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 2 July 2026 (assessment visit 7 May 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 8 to 20 May 2026. The service is a residential care home, providing personal care to adults over 65 years old, living with dementia and/ or physical disabilities. The service is registered to provide accommodation to a maximum of 29 people. At the time of our assessment, 28 people were using the service.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective No rating
  • Caring No rating
  • Responsive No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

The assessment was prompted by concerns raised in relation to medication, staffing, environment and governance; we looked at all quality statements.

We identified the provider was in breach of 3 legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance.

People experienced kind interactions from staff in day‑to‑day care. However, the quality of care was inconsistent, and systems to keep people safe, deliver person‑centred care and provide effective oversight were not reliably embedded.

We identified shortfalls in risk management and environmental safety. Fire safety actions identified in risk assessments had not been completed or adequately mitigated.

Care planning and monitoring did not consistently reflect people’s assessed needs. Some care plans lacked clear guidance for staff. Records did not always show people received the right support.

We observed positive interactions and a calm atmosphere during our visit. Many people appeared comfortable and supported by staff who knew them well. However, feedback from relatives and staff showed experiences were mixed, and concerns were raised about dignity, consistency of care and the impact of staffing pressures. Activities were available, but people were not always supported to take part in ways that reflected their preferences.

People’s rooms were personalised and staff supported access to healthcare professionals when required.

Governance and provider oversight were ineffective. The service had been without a registered manager for over a year, and frequent changes in leadership had contributed to instability. Quality assurance systems were either absent or not embedded, including audits of care planning, health and safety, infection prevention and call bell response times. Action plans were not clearly owned, dated or monitored. Staff told us they did not receive regular supervision or appraisals, although this had begun to improve recently. While professionals described the manager as open and responsive, there was no evidence of consistent provider oversight to ensure improvements were sustained.

At the time of the assessment, some improvements had started, particularly around leadership presence, staff support and training. However, these changes were too recent to demonstrate sustained improvement, and significant risks remained.

We asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and staffing.

  2. Effective

    No rating

    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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

    The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

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

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant people’s needs were not always met.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  4. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.

Registration details

Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability

Inspection report

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

6 inspection reports, latest 10 April 2020. Latest assessment published 2 July 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

Provider
Abbeyfield Tamar Extra Care SocietyBrand: Abbeyfield Society
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
12182254 (opens Companies House)
Charity number
1185635

Getting help from Plymouth City 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 Tamar House provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Tamar House as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Tamar House have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 29 beds at Tamar House.
When was Tamar House last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Tamar House was published on 2 July 2026.
Who runs Tamar House?
Tamar House is run by Abbeyfield Tamar Extra Care Society.
What is Tamar House's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 2 July 2026.

Contact

Phone
01752 510810
Address
11 Brest Road, Derriford, Plymouth, PL6 5XN Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Down House (Good, 0.4 miles away) and Manor House (Good, 0.4 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Down House Good, 0.4 miles away
  2. G
    Manor House Good, 0.4 miles away
  3. RI
    Sunnymeade Quality Care Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away
  4. G
    The Lodge Good, 0.6 miles away
  5. G
    Kazdin Good, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Plymouth

See all care homes in Crownhill