Rated Care Homes

Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 3 ratings

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

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 61 of 381

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

Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home: inspection record

Care home, 24 beds, Lancashire

Rated Requires improvement in August 2026, down from Good.

Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential 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

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Hollydale (Good, 1 mile away) and Mapledale (Good, 1 mile away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Hollydale Good, 1 mile away
  2. G
    Mapledale Good, 1 mile away
  3. G
    Rowandale Good, 1 mile away
  4. G
    Willowdale Good, 1 mile away
  5. G
    Willowbank Rest Home Good, 1.2 miles away

See all care homes in Lancashire

See all care homes in Whittle-le-Woods

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 24 August 2026 (assessment visit 20 April 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 5 May to 10 June 2025. Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home provides accommodation for people who require personal care. The home supports up to 24 older people, at the time of our assessment, 23 people lived at the home.

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

At the last rated inspection in 2017 the home was rated good. At this inspection we found standards had declined and the home was now in breach of legal regulations for; consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, premises and equipment and governance.

Incidents were not adequately reviewed, and appropriate actions were not taken to help prevent reoccurrence. Information was not always gathered about people as they moved into the service, to help support safe transitions. Safeguarding systems were not effective, and the home did not work in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when people were deprived of their liberty. Staff did not have access to adequate information about risks to people’s health or wellbeing, including for those people who communicated a need, emotion or distress. There were several gaps in staff training. Some areas of the home environment were unsafe, and we found concerns relating to security, fire safety and infection prevention and control. Medicines were not managed safely.

Care plans lacked key information about people and records were not completed consistently to show people received support in line with their assessed needs. Staff were not involved in daily handover meetings and gave some negative feedback about communication amongst the team. Assessment tools were not used consistently to monitor people for signs of deterioration. Consent was not sought in line with MCA principles, and staff did not have access to information about people’s capacity.

We could not be assured people’s care was person-centred because information in care plans did not fully reflect their individual needs and preferences. There was limited evidence to show people and their relatives were involved in making decisions when people’s needs changed. People who had a terminal diagnosis or were at end of life, did not always have an associated care plan to ensure their wishes were recorded and shared with the team.

Leaders at the home were not aware of the key issues and risks at the home. Staff did not always feel they could speak up and opportunities for them to do so were limited. Governance systems were inadequate and oversight was poor. The provider and registered manager had not always used information, recommendations from external agencies or feedback from staff to drive improvement at the home.

However, the home worked closely with healthcare partners and staff encouraged people to improve their mobility. Staff were kind and caring and treated people like individuals. There was a weekly timetable of activities and people were supported to have choice and control over their lives. Staff felt valued and well supported and spoke positively about the registered manager and their colleagues. Staff were flexible and people enjoyed good continuity of care. People had access to information about the service and were given the opportunity to feed back about their experiences. The home was adapted to meet the needs of people living there. There was a positive culture which ensured people were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. The registered manager worked in partnership with other services and agencies to seek advice and share learning.

We have taken regulatory action against the registered manager; we have published this information on our website and have asked the provider for an action plan in response to concerns found at this assessment.

  1. Safe

    Inadequate

    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 inadequate. This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm.

    The service was found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to the safety of people’s care, the safety and cleanliness of premises and equipment, safeguarding and medicines management.

  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 service was found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent.

  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 good. 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 service was found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance at the home.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Inadequate on 24 August 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 24 August 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 24 August 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered manager
Christine Wilkes
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Older People

Inspection report

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

6 inspection reports, latest 2 February 2022. Latest assessment published 24 August 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
03526232 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Lancashire 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 Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 24 beds at Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home.
When was Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home was published on 24 August 2026.
Who runs Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home?
Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home is run by Teamcare Limited.
What is Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 24 August 2026.

Contact

Phone
01257 265198
Address
226 Preston Road, Whittle-le-Woods, Chorley, PR6 7HW Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Hollydale (Good, 1 mile away) and Mapledale (Good, 1 mile away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Hollydale Good, 1 mile away
  2. G
    Mapledale Good, 1 mile away
  3. G
    Rowandale Good, 1 mile away
  4. G
    Willowdale Good, 1 mile away
  5. G
    Willowbank Rest Home Good, 1.2 miles away

See all care homes in Lancashire

See all care homes in Whittle-le-Woods