Quinnell House
- Care home
- 56 beds
- No nursing
- Dementia care
- Registered since 2014
- Hailsham, East Sussex, South East
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.
5 months
since the latest rating was published.
39 of 258
rated care homes in East Sussex are rated Requires improvement, like this one.
Quinnell House: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in May 2026, down from Good.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Grangemead (Good, 0.2 miles away) and Abbots Wood Manor (Good, 0.3 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- G Grangemead Good, 0.2 miles away
- G Abbots Wood Manor Good, 0.3 miles away
- – Bowes House Not yet rated, 0.5 miles away
- RI Hailsham House Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away
- G Jemini Response 52 Summerheath Road Good, 0.8 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 29 May 2026 (assessment visit 26 March 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of assessment, 15 April 2026 to 27 April 2026.
Quinnell House provides accommodation, care and support to a maximum of 56 people who live with dementia. The service does not provide nursing care on site and used district nurses to provide support when needed. 38 people were living at Quinnell House at the time of our inspection.
- Safe No rating
- Effective Good
- Caring Good
- Responsive Good
- Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary
This service was last inspected in May 2019 and rated Good. This inspection was planned and undertaken due to the age of the rating. At this inspection, we found improvements were needed, and the rating of the service has changed to Requires Improvement. The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and the governance of the service.
People’s safety was not consistently considered, and risk was not managed pro-actively. There were no records of lessons learned following incidents. Care plans and risk assessments were not person centred and were missing detail about their social needs and how these were met. Fire training, evacuations and drills had not been undertaken. The emergency fire grab bag was not accessible and PEEPs for people were not all in place and accurate. This was immediately actioned to ensure people and staff were safe. The overview for peoples’ weights had shown weight loss of up to 5kgs in a month for 9 people that had not been checked or followed up with appropriate actions. For some people, their weight continued to decrease. Staff had been taking wound/skin integrity photographs which were not identifiable, labelled, measured or described accurately and had not been done in a dignified way. There was a lack of documented information regarding peoples’ wounds which meant they could not be monitored and advice sought in a timely manner. Staff had not all received the training, supervision or appraisals required to provide safe, consistent care. The governance and overview of processes had not ensured safe and consistent care. The in-house audits and governance systems were not consistently robust and had not identified all the shortfalls found and discussed during the inspection process. For example, staff were using their own mobile phones to record activities and photograph skin integrity issues. This has immediately been stopped and appropriate handsets purchased to link with the computer care plans. Deprivation of Liberty safeguards were out of date and had not been reapplied for.
There were enough staff deployed, and recruitment processes had recently been audited and improved, this had ensured the safe recruitment of staff. The home was clean and staff followed good practice guidelines in infection control procedures. Feedback relating to communication and response to concerns was mixed with some people reporting positive and timely responses from the service when issues were raised, and others telling us there was often a delay in getting answers when they raised queries. New staff received an induction and training which enabled them to manage people’s health and social care effectively. People’s privacy was respected and their independence encouraged within the limits of personal safety. People told us that staff were kind and caring. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, and there was a friendly culture in the service.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
-
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 Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.
This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.
The Service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care.
-
Effective
Good
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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
-
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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with kindness and compassion and involved as partners in their care.
-
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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.
This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
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 management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the quality monitoring and governance at the service.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 29 May 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 29 May 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
- Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
Registration details
- Registered manager
- Adam Thompsett
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service without nursing
- Who it supports
- Dementia, Older People
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)4 inspection reports, latest 18 February 2021. Latest assessment published 29 May 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
- Bamford Care Homes Limited
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 03709021 (opens Companies House)
Getting help from East Sussex County Council
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at East Sussex County Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 0345 60 80 191, 8am to 8pm, 7 days a week (including bank holidays)
- Contact adult social care online
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: East Sussex County Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Quinnell House provide nursing care?
- No. The Care Quality Commission lists Quinnell House as a care home without nursing.
- How many beds does Quinnell House have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 56 beds at Quinnell House.
- When was Quinnell House last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Quinnell House was published on 29 May 2026.
- Who runs Quinnell House?
- Quinnell House is run by Bamford Care Homes Limited.
- What is Quinnell House's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 29 May 2026.
Contact
- Phone
- 01323 849913
- Address
- 77 Quinnell Drive, Hailsham, BN27 1QN Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Grangemead (Good, 0.2 miles away) and Abbots Wood Manor (Good, 0.3 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- G Grangemead Good, 0.2 miles away
- G Abbots Wood Manor Good, 0.3 miles away
- – Bowes House Not yet rated, 0.5 miles away
- RI Hailsham House Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away
- G Jemini Response 52 Summerheath Road Good, 0.8 miles away