Amberwood Care Home Limited

The service supports older people aged 65 and over and people with physical disabilities. There were 41 people using the service at the time of the assessment.

We carried out this assessment on 27 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.

People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. People using the service reported feeling safe, and relatives spoke positively about the standard of care, describing the home as “well managed, well run” and that their loved ones were “well looked after.”

The home was clean and well-maintained, with no hazards identified. Appropriate safety checks were carried out, and equipment was kept in good working order and regularly maintained. A relative described the home as, “The place is lovely and spotless,” and a person using the service said, “You would not better a place for cleanliness.” This reflected a consistently high standard of housekeeping and maintained across the service, contributing to a safe and pleasant environment for people to live in. However, we observed wheelchairs not always having their brakes fully applied. We raised this with the provider and immediate action was taken to address this.

Care plans were detailed, covering people’s need and were supported by risk assessments for those with health conditions. However, we identified some inconsistencies and found some care records required improving to ensure care records were clear, consistent and accurately recorded. This represented a small area for improvement rather than a current risk to people’s safety.

During the inspection, staff were observed supporting people in a kind and unhurried manner, explaining what they were doing and providing reassurance whilst helping people with mobility and equipment. Staff promoted independence across every aspect of people’s lives, helping them to live as they wish. However, some feedback indicated that staff occasionally used their first language, and a small number were perceived as rushed when providing support. A few people also reported delays in call bell response times. This has been identified as an area for ongoing monitoring to ensure people’s needs are met consistently.

Staff consistently described the training and support available to them as positive. Staff understood their role in protecting people from abuse and knew how to report concerns and who to report them to. Staff at all levels shared the provider’s vision of person-centred care, choice, independence and inclusion and described feeling as part of a team regardless of their individual roles. The registered manager and their team had created an open culture in which everyone’s thoughts and feelings were valued. Staff consistently shared that the management team were supportive and approachable. Many positive comments were made, for example staff told us, “[name] is always helpful and supportive, and another staff member described the relationship between staff as, “very positive, they can’t fault anyone” and “the staff team are like one big family.”

The service supported people to have choice and control over their lives, placing them at the centre of planning and reviewing their support. People were able to choose which activities they wanted to take part in, what they would like to eat and what they wished to wear each day. People also had control over their own routines, including what time they got up in the morning and what time they went to bed at night. Relatives told us they received copies of their loved one’s care plans and that they were kept informed and spoken to whenever any changes were made. A relative told us, “[name] can no longer use the rotunda and had to be hoisted, and this has been changed in their care plan.” This demonstrated that care plans were kept up to date in response to changes in people’s needs. However, as noted this was not always consistent across all care records.

Risk was managed safely and proportionately across the service. Medication was handled safely and in an organised way, with robust oversight and effective liaison with other health professionals. People received their medication as and when needed and staff were seen administering medication safely and using a person-centred approach.

Stakeholders spoke positively about how the staff team worked with them. A health professional said, “staff had extremely good knowledge of residents, everyone knows everyone, the personal information they [staff] know is beyond the next level.”

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.