Rated Care Homes

Quebec Hall Limited

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    First rated Requires improvement in 2015, most recently Good in July 2026.

  • 3 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 173 of 288

    rated care homes in Norfolk are rated Good, like this one.

Quebec Hall Limited: inspection record

Care home, 22 beds, Norfolk

Rated Good in July 2026.

Quebec Hall Limited: 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

  1. G
    Link House Good, 0.4 miles away
  2. G
    Dorrington House (Dereham) Good, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Sanford House Nursing Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  4. G
    St Nicholas House Good, 1 mile away
  5. RI
    Walnut House Requires improvement, 1.1 miles away

See all care homes in Norfolk

See all care homes in Dereham

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 22 July 2026 (assessment visit 30 June 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

We carried out this inspection on 08 July 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.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

People who used the service were supported by enough staff who had the skills and training to support them safely. Staff were safely recruited and underwent an induction process. Staff were well supported by the management team. Some staff received additional training to enable them to administer medicines and had their competency to do this checked. Medicines were safely managed and, where people administered their own medicines, there were risk assessments in place for this.

Staff understood their responsibility to report and act on safeguarding concerns, should they suspect a person was at risk of abuse or experiencing abuse. The registered manager reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority safeguarding team and to CQC. However, we identified three instances where this had not taken place. People were not injured and had not come to harm, but best practice would have been to report any concerns. The registered manager acknowledged this and noted for future occasions.

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. However, we identified one concern where there was no record of a capacity assessment for people sharing rooms. The provider acknowledged this and committed to addressing this as soon as possible. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Risks were identified, mitigated and well monitored to ensure changes to risk assessments were not required. Infection control risks were well managed, with care staff having additional cleaning duties to supplement and heighten cleaning procedures. The service was clean and odour free. The environment was safe and many people were able to access all areas of the service independently. Equipment, such as hoists and stand-aids, was well maintained. Maintenance staff carried out regular safety checks to ensure systems were working correctly and the building remained in a good state of repair.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them coming to live at Quebec Hall and regularly reviewed. People’s needs relating to eating and drinking were well managed and staff were seen promoting additional drinks during a period of very hot weather. The service was kept reasonably cool and people were comfortable. People were provided with a nutritional diet with plenty of choice. Health needs were well monitored and appropriate referrals made when needed, to the falls team or speech and language therapists for example. People consented to their care and were given opportunities to feed back on all aspects of the service in surveys and meetings. The provider took note of people’s feedback and action followed.

Care was person centred. Staff were kind and relationships between staff and the people they were supporting and caring for, were good. Care was unhurried and the atmosphere was calm. Staff were very positive about the service, with one saying. ‘They are a family – it is about the relationships with people.’

There was good oversight by the registered manager and the general manager, with systems and processes in place to monitor all aspects of the service. The service planned to further improve this by introducing electronic systems soon. Staff were well supported with supervision sessions and staff meetings. There was a shared direction and culture based on Christian faith but not excluding those of other or no faith. People were supported and cared for whilst their independence was maintained as much as possible.

  1. Safe

    Good

    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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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

  5. Well-led

    Good

    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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  2. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
David Woodgett
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People

Inspection report

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

9 inspection reports, latest 5 February 2022. Latest assessment published 22 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

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
00853450 (opens Companies House)
Charity number
251535

Getting help from Norfolk 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 Quebec Hall Limited provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Quebec Hall Limited as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Quebec Hall Limited have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 22 beds at Quebec Hall Limited.
When was Quebec Hall Limited last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Quebec Hall Limited was published on 22 July 2026.
Who runs Quebec Hall Limited?
Quebec Hall Limited is run by Quebec Hall Limited.
What is Quebec Hall Limited's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 22 July 2026.

Contact

Phone
01362 692504
Address
Quebec Hall, Quebec Road, Dereham, NR19 2QY Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Link House Good, 0.4 miles away
  2. G
    Dorrington House (Dereham) Good, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Sanford House Nursing Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  4. G
    St Nicholas House Good, 1 mile away
  5. RI
    Walnut House Requires improvement, 1.1 miles away

See all care homes in Norfolk

See all care homes in Dereham