Drakelow House Residential Home

Who the service is for

This service supports older people living in a care home setting.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 6 and 9 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be achieved through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which form part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how it managed DoLS. We found that staff and managers worked within the principles of the MCA. DoLS applications were made appropriately when required and were effectively monitored. People were not subject to unlawful or unnecessary restrictions and had choice, control and freedom over their lives. At the time of our visit, no DoLS authorisations were required.

Processes were in place to ensure learning from incidents and to reduce future risks. People told us they felt safe. Risks were assessed and action was taken to mitigate them, although we identified some minor gaps in how risks were assessed. We raised these with the deputy manager, who took prompt action to address them. The home was clean, tidy and homely. Appropriate safety checks and maintenance were completed, although there were some small outstanding actions. We requested these be addressed at the earliest opportunity.

There was a consistent and stable staff team supporting people. People generally felt there were enough staff available, with one person commenting, “There always seems to be enough staff.” Staff were recruited safely and had access to appropriate training, supervision and support.

Systems for the oversight of medicines and record-keeping were not always fully robust. However, people received their medicines as prescribed, and those who were able, were supported to manage their own medicines independently.

People’s needs were assessed, and care plans were implemented and reviewed regularly. When assessing new referrals, the provider considered the needs of people already living at the home to ensure compatibility and appropriate support could be provided. Staff knew people well and were able to identify changes in their needs quickly and take appropriate action. Staff worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals to support positive outcomes for people. Further work was required to ensure records consistently reflected the care and support provided, in order for any changes to be more closely monitored. People were asked for their consent before support was provided.

Care staff were described as kind and caring, and we observed people making their own decisions, which were respected by staff. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and to do as much for themselves as they could.

Staff knew people well and engaged them in positive and meaningful conversations, including discussions about their life histories, interests and preferences. Care was personalised to meet people’s individual needs. However, staff undertook a variety of roles, including cooking and domestic duties, and some people told us they would like more opportunities for activities and social engagement within the home. People were supported to access the services they needed, and the home arranged visits from a range of healthcare professionals, including chiropodists, opticians and GPs.

Staff worked closely with the management team and demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement. We identified some areas where governance and oversight systems could be strengthened. The deputy manager was receptive to feedback and took prompt steps to address the matters raised.