Walmer Care Centre

Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for older people and people living with dementia. The service adopts a home from home model of care.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment between 4 August and 26 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 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.

People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Staff had completed an extensive list of training and were passionate about providing person-centred care that met people’s needs. Recruitment processes had not always ensured full employment histories were obtained; however the registered manager took action to address this and ensure full employment histories were obtained in future.

Risks for people were assessed. Detailed care plans were in place to support staff to mitigate risks for people and to meet their needs in person-centred ways. We observed staff meeting people’s needs in line with their risk assessments and care plans. Accidents and incidents were managed appropriately by staff, analysis by management for patterns, trends and learning took place to reduce the risk of future re-occurrence. For example, the registered manager told us they altered the colour of a person’s equipment and found the person had experienced fewer falls since.

The home environment was clean and maintained. Equipment used to support people to mobilise was serviced and replaced when required. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and the service worked in partnership with relevant external bodies to protect people from risk of harm. Most medicines were managed and administered safely. However, we identified an issue with a person’s time-sensitive medicines. We raised this with the registered manager who took immediate action to address the concern and ensure the person received their medicines as required in future.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service and were regularly reviewed to ensure staff could meet their needs. The registered manager was enthusiastic and committed to providing evidence-based care and treatment. They had embedded this into staff practice, particularly in relation to dementia care and end-of-life care.

A health and social care professional was complimentary about the service delivering evidence-based care and told us staff utilised recognised tools to support them to monitor and manage people’s needs.

Staff worked well together and with other professionals and external agencies to meet people’s needs and improve their outcomes. A staff member told us, “I have seen quiet and shy residents come out of their shells and truly enjoy being with us joining in the frequent activities and trips taken and providing a safe environment so that residents can enjoy their final years in peace and happiness.” A health and social care professional complimented the service on achieving a positive outcome for a person stating, ‘[Person’s] sore would not have healed so well if it wasn’t for all that the staff do for [them].’ Staff sought consent from people before providing their care and supported people to make choices they were able to.

People were supported by kind staff who were passionate about their roles and ensuring people maintained a good quality of life. We observed staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect throughout the inspection. People were supported to be as independent as possible, with staff providing encouragement and support when needed. People had choice and control over their daily lives for example choosing where they wished to spend their time and which activities they wanted to engage in.

People consistently received person-centred care from staff who knew them very well. Care reflected people’s preferences and people’s protected characteristics were considered and supported to ensure they received equity in their experiences and outcomes. People, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns and felt these would be acted on. The service had received a high number of compliments, and their 1 complaint had been dealt with appropriately.

There was a very positive and inclusive culture at the service. Staff continuously referred to the service as people’s home, felt privileged to be part of people’s lives and aimed for the best quality of life for people possible. Staff had received numerous awards and continually engaged in community and fundraising events that benefitted people living at the service. Governance systems supported the management of the home. Regular audits were completed and quality assurance processes such as meetings and surveys supported the service to continuously review and improve the quality of care.