Downlands

Who the service is for

The service supports older people with complex nursing needs. This included people on End-of-Life care pathways and people living with dementia.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 8 September 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 received highly personalised support from staff who understood not only their needs, but also their strengths, relationships and what was important to them. Care was tailored to meet people’s individual needs, with a focus on improving cognition, reducing distress and maintaining independence. Activities were person-centred and meaningful for people. The home used the Pool Activity Level tool to assess what activities would be beneficial for people. A wide range of activities were offered including cultural days, pamper sessions and visits from local school children for reading events.

The provider demonstrated a strong commitment to learning and improvement. The registered manager was proactively involved in local forums where opportunities to develop were discussed and implemented. The activities coordinator worked closely with the mental health team to develop meaningful activities which benefitted people’s health and wellbeing.

There was a highly positive and open culture at the home. Staff spoke unanimously positively about the registered manager and support they received. One staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is brilliant, they are so patient with us and always encouraging us to ask questions and learn.”

People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Staff demonstrated a strong knowledge of safeguarding, including how to recognise signs of abuse, what to report and when. Accidents and incidents were robustly documented and analysed regularly for learning opportunities. Staff received appropriate training and were recruited safely. There was a long-standing staff team which ensured good consistent care delivery.

Risks to people were assessed and managed. Nationally recognised tools were used to support these assessments and drive good practice at the home. Staff had a strong working relationship with visiting professionals. One professional told us, “I personally find it to be a wonderful home to work with. The home provides high-quality consistent care to people, I do not believe I have ever visited the home and not been warmly welcomed. The team are friendly, approachable and reliable.”

People’s nutritional needs were met, and the home used a positive mealtime project to promote good dietary intake. Staff were mindful of matters which could be reducing people’s eating, for example, denture discomfort. Where necessary, action was taken quickly to involve relevant professionals. The chef demonstrated a strong knowledge of people’s likes and dislikes, and menus were shaped around these. One person told us, “Even if I want something that is not on the menu, I can have it. I can ask for anything.”

Staff were kind and compassionate. We observed warm interactions between people and staff throughout the day of our visit. People were given choices and maintained control of their daily routines. Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy.

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.

Quality assurance processes were in place to drive good practice in the home. Where areas of development were identified, action had been taken to rectify these. The registered manager had robust oversight of the service and promoted an inclusive culture. Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and could approach management with ideas or concerns, speaking of confidence that they would be heard and action taken as needed.