Larks Leas

Who the service is for

This service supports people aged 65 and over.

Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 18 August 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 and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided and told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff spoke highly about the home referring to it as ‘homely’ with comments including, “I think the home does well in being caring to all, having a homely feeling while keeping people safe” and “I feel Larks Leas is a home from home. Larks Leas tries to ensure that all individuals that live here are supported and cared for like a loved one”.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Staff felt well supported by leaders who were visible, approachable and engaged. Comments from staff included, “The home is well led and supportive. [Manager] is very approachable and supportive at times I have needed it”, “Management are approachable and supportive, you can approach them any time. They are willing to listen and help with any problems to help staff and residents and help you work out solutions to problems” and “I have never hesitated to approach the management should I need to. They are very warm and welcoming to help support where they can and never hesitate to do so. I always feel I am taken seriously and communication is very easy”.

Care plans were in place, were person centred and covered key areas of people’s needs and risks. Risks were assessed and people were involved in the process. People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and staff kept up to date with any changes. One staff member said, “All care plans are up to date and relevant to the resident’s needs”. Another said, “Care plans are worked on regularly and appropriately by management and our senior team leader. They are all excellent at their jobs and I believe the care plans reflect that. We are able to do our jobs well because of information availability, relevance and up to date nature”.

Staff understood and managed risk while supporting people to take part in activities. One staff member told us, “All staff do their best to encourage residents to join in with activities, the activities staff are both very good and encourage group activities as well as 1 to 1s.” We observed meaningful interactions with staff and people enjoying group and 1 to 1 activities.
People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who promoted choices in ways people understood. Staff spoke to and about people with warmth, acknowledged their individuality and respected their dignity. Staff promoted people’s independence to ensure people lived the life they wanted. One staff member said, “Residents are continuously encouraged to be as independent as possible if and where they can. This requires a lot of communication with residents to learn more extensively about them as individuals and how they would like to be supported both in the present and in the future”.

There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibility in reporting any concerns. Comments from staff included, “We have had full training on how to report harm or abuse both inside and outside of the organisation”, “I would report concerns to management, if they weren't addressed, I would move up the ladder to higher management and if not, they would be reported externally” and, “I am fully aware of how to report and identify harm and abuse, we receive regular training on these topics. If I had concerns to raise, I would speak to my manager, my local safeguarding team or CQC. I am aware of Larks Leas policies and know how to access them for reference.”

The home was clean, well maintained, and free from environmental hazards, with appropriate safety checks completed and equipment kept in good working order.

Medicines were managed safely, supported by effective systems to maintain robust oversight. Staff were suitably trained and worked well with external professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people. Healthcare professionals confirmed this with comments including, “They are very on it. They are able to pick up if something is not right”, “We have a good working relationship” and “It’s a nice atmosphere in the home.” Staff had regular competency checks to make sure they continued to give medicines safely. A staff member told us, “I last had a competency check this month, we are assessed six monthly.”
The provider established a positive learning culture. People, their relatives and staff could raise concerns. Managers investigated concerns and incidents thoroughly and shared learning. Comments from staff included, “Accidents and incidents are shared during handover, it will also be recorded on the [electronic care planning system] and highlighted for every staff member to read at the beginning of their shift to ensure they are up to date with recent events”, “Accidents are documented on the [electronic care planning system] and are shared at handovers and assessed to see if it was preventable, if measures are needed to reduce it happening again if equipment is needed” and, “We also have regular staff meetings to ensure all staff are aware of any issues raised and what needs to improve to better the service”.

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.