Rated Care Homes

Falcon House Care Home

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 5 ratings

    Its last inspection improved it from Inadequate to Requires improvement.

  • 7 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 37 of 249

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

Falcon House Care Home: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 46 beds, Nottinghamshire

Rated Requires improvement in March 2026, up from Inadequate.

Falcon House Care 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: McMorrow House (Outstanding, 0.1 miles away) and Dovecote (Good, 0.1 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. O
    McMorrow House Outstanding, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Dovecote Good, 0.1 miles away
  3. O
    Goodman House Outstanding, 0.2 miles away
  4. G
    Beeston Rise Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. G
    1 Devonshire Avenue Good, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Nottinghamshire

See all care homes in Beeston

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 25 March 2026 (assessment visit 14 January 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 20 January 2026. The service is a residential care home providing support to older people, some of whom live with dementia and physical disabilities. At the time of our assessment, there were 25 people being supported with their care needs. The service is registered to support a maximum of 46 people.

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

Falcon House Care Home was last rated Requires Improvement (report published 1 September 2025). This assessment has been completed following the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) new approach to assessment.

Records showed the management team had not always investigated incidents thoroughly to ensure people were protected and kept safe. We raised this with the management team to address.

The manager ensured information on incidents and accidents was shared with the CQC and relevant partner agencies as required.

The provider and management team had a service improvement plan in place, to address the previous lack of oversight and quality monitoring in place at the service. The service had taken steps to improve quality and more time was needed to fully embed new processes. We will review the actions taken by the provider at our next assessment.

The staff team were not all equipped with the right skills and qualifications. The management team responded promptly to this, and ensured required training was booked where there were shortfalls.

Improvements had been made to the management of medicines within the service. The management team had worked with the Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board, Medicines Management Team and their Local Authority commissioners to improve their practice.

The management team had taken measures to improve how staff raised concerns and how leaders acted to improve the service. Since our last assessment, there had been significant changes in the management structure and staffing. This had given people and staff more confidence to raise concerns.

People and their relatives were not always fully involved in assessments of their needs. Care plans and risk assessments had not been promptly updated, to take account of changes in people’s care and health needs. People’s health was not always effectively monitored to support healthy living. The implementation of a new electronic care planning system showed evidence the service was working towards embedding improvements. This included review of all care plans and records, ensuring the involvement of people and their relatives.

People were supported to eat and drink to stay healthy. However, the records of their daily intake required improvement to ensure holistic care to maintain good health.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff, who responded to people in a timely way when people used their call bells or expressed distress.

Leaders were improving the culture within the service, based on listening, learning and trust. Staff felt more confident now, in giving feedback and feeling free from bullying or harassment. The manager supported staff wellbeing and development.

The provider and management team showed a willingness to work with external health and social care partners, to ensure care quality at the service was improved.

At our previous assessment, we found the provider was in breach of regulations related to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, person centred care and governance.

At this assessment, we found improvements had been made in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and person centred care. The provider remained in breach of regulation relating to good governance, as some of the processes were not fully embedded. We will request an action plan from the provider.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

    This meant people and their relatives were not always fully involved, and the provider processes in place were not fully embedded to ensure people were kept safe.

    At our previous assessment, the provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, medicines management and safeguarding. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made to the management of medicines, but some shortfalls remained in risk oversight, safeguarding and learning from incidents.

  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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

    This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or lacked consistency.

  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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service was not always well managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created, promoted person-centred care.

    At our previous assessment, the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. At this assessment, we found that, although improvements had been made, the processes in place were not fully embedded. The provider remains in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 25 March 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 25 March 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 25 March 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  4. Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.

Registration details

Registered manager
Lukasz Holewik
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

10 inspection reports, latest 13 March 2021. Latest assessment published 25 March 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

Provider
Minster Care Management LimitedBrand: Minster Care Group
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
03676785 (opens Companies House)

Minster Care Management Limited runs 27 services in England, 6 of them in the East Midlands. 18 are rated Good or Outstanding, 7 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate and 2 have no rating yet.

Other services run by Minster Care Management Limited

  1. G
    Abbeywell Court Good. Care home with nursing, Staffordshire, West Midlands
  2. G
    Broadgate Care Home Good. Care home with nursing, Nottinghamshire
  3. G
    Chestnut Lodge Good. Care home with nursing, Ealing, London
  4. G
    Elm Lodge Good. Care home with nursing, Ealing, London

See all 27 services run by Minster Care Management Limited

Getting help from Nottinghamshire 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 Falcon House Care Home provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Falcon House Care Home as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Falcon House Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 46 beds at Falcon House Care Home.
When was Falcon House Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Falcon House Care Home was published on 25 March 2026.
Who runs Falcon House Care Home?
Falcon House Care Home is run by Minster Care Management Limited. It runs 27 services in England, 6 of them in the East Midlands.
What is Falcon House Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 25 March 2026.

Contact

Address
2 Middle Street, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 1FX Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: McMorrow House (Outstanding, 0.1 miles away) and Dovecote (Good, 0.1 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. O
    McMorrow House Outstanding, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Dovecote Good, 0.1 miles away
  3. O
    Goodman House Outstanding, 0.2 miles away
  4. G
    Beeston Rise Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. G
    1 Devonshire Avenue Good, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Nottinghamshire

See all care homes in Beeston