Rated Care Homes

Wray Park Care Home

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 3 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 56 of 302

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

Wray Park Care Home: inspection record

Care home, 24 beds, Surrey

Rated Requires improvement in July 2026, down from Good.

Wray Park 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: Wray Common Nursing Home (Good, 0.6 miles away) and Eversfield (Good, 0.8 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Ridgegate Home Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  2. G
    Wray Common Nursing Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. G
    Eversfield Good, 0.8 miles away
  4. G
    33 Blanford Road Good, 1 mile away
  5. G
    Priors Mead Care Home Good, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Surrey

See all care homes in Reigate

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 31 July 2026 (assessment visit 20 June 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 30 June 2026

Wray Park Care Home is a residential care home providing support to older people, people living with dementia and people living with a physical disability. There were 20 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

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

The providers registration changed in 2023, and this is the first inspection under this registration. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to person-centred care, concerns around consent, safe care and treatment including infection control and medicines, safeguarding, staff deployment and training and the governance.

Risks to people were not always being assessed when a health need had been identified. Other risk assessments undertaken did not always include all the necessary detail about their needs or the guidance for staff. There were unsafe practices around the management of medicines. There was a lack of analysing people’s periods of emotional distress to look for possible triggers and ways to support.
There was a lack of monitoring of people’s health needs. There were gaps in staff training which we observed had an impact on staff knowledge and skills when caring for people. Improvements were required around the deployment of staff.

The cleanliness, maintenance and infection control measures around parts of the building were poor. Activities were offered regularly to some people, however, there was a lack of activities offered to people being cared for in bed. The environment was not adapted to support the cognitive needs of those living with dementia. Leaders had a lack of understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Restrictions were being placed on people where appropriate authorisation had not always been sought. Staff lacked an understanding of how to report safeguarding concerns. Leaders did not always investigate alleged safeguarding concerns.

Although, we found some areas of care were not delivered in a respectful way, staff on the whole interacted with people in a kind, and compassionate manner. Whilst communication was good with some people, leaders had not considered alternative methods of communication with others. This was also the same for gaining feedback from people. There was a lack of robust governance and oversight of the care being delivered. The provider has been responsive to the concerns found and has commissioned a consultant to assist with the improvements. They have also provided us with the report from consultant along with an action plan which included short deadlines to make the necessary improvements.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the breaches found at this assessment.

  1. Safe

    Inadequate

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment including the ways people’s medicines not being managed safely and cleanliness, safeguarding people from abuse and ensuring they were not subject to unlawful restrictions, staff deployment and training.

  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.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered amend as required service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in regard to people’s rights and consent.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered- amend as required service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered- amend as required service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

  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.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Inadequate on 31 July 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 31 July 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 31 July 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  4. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 31 July 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.

Registration details

Registered manager
Nicola Elliott
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment

Inspection report

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

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
13415450 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Surrey 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 Wray Park Care Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Wray Park Care Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Wray Park Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 24 beds at Wray Park Care Home.
When was Wray Park Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Wray Park Care Home was published on 31 July 2026.
Who runs Wray Park Care Home?
Wray Park Care Home is run by Care Homes of Distinction (Wray Park) Limited.
What is Wray Park Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 31 July 2026.

Contact

Phone
01737 248245
Address
55 Alma Road, Reigate, RH2 0DN Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Wray Common Nursing Home (Good, 0.6 miles away) and Eversfield (Good, 0.8 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Ridgegate Home Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  2. G
    Wray Common Nursing Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. G
    Eversfield Good, 0.8 miles away
  4. G
    33 Blanford Road Good, 1 mile away
  5. G
    Priors Mead Care Home Good, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Surrey

See all care homes in Reigate