Clover Cottage

The accommodation is arranged over 2 levels. The ground floor is accessible for people with physical disabilities or restricted mobility.

Who the service is for

The service supports older people including people living with dementia, sensory impairment and physical health needs.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 16 September 2026 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 if we found 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. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (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 told us they felt safe living at the home and relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided. A person told us, “Yes, I do feel safe and secure here. Carers are good with me. They are so caring and so good.” Another person said, “Staff and environment make me feel safe here. I really do like it. It just lovely here.”

The environment was clean, odour free, well maintained and free from hazards, with appropriate safety checks completed and equipment in good order. The provider carried out various checks on the physical environment to help ensure it was safe. These included tests by qualified contractors relating to fire, gas, electricals and water safety. The provider also carried out health and safety assessments to ensure the premises were safe for people.

Staffing levels were stable, and staff described feeling well supported by visible and approachable leaders. We observed kind, respectful and unhurried interactions between staff and people throughout the day. Staff supported people safely with mobility and equipment, explaining what they were doing and offering reassurance. Records showed staff had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe. They knew of their responsibilities to protect people from harm.

Care plans were person centred and covered key areas of people’s needs and risks. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviews of the care. Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to inform staff how to reduce and manage risks to maintain people’s safety. For example, we saw risk assessments had been undertaken for people who were at risk of falls.

A system was in place to record and monitor accidents and incidents within the service. The registered manager investigated all accidents and incidents, taking appropriate action to reduce the risk of recurrence and ensure people remained safe. We saw evidence that learning from incidents was embedded within the service, with appropriate actions identified, implemented, and monitored to improve safety and improve the quality of care.

Medicines were mostly managed in a safe way. Medicines administration charts were maintained. We saw these had been competed accurately, and they were regularly audited by a senior member of staff. However, we found that for medicines prescribed on a ‘as required’ [PRN] basis, there were no guidelines in place for staff about when to administer these medicines. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would draft PRN protocol for the people identified during our inspection.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences, and personal circumstances, enabling them to develop positive, respectful, and trusting relationships.

The service promoted an open, inclusive, and person-centred culture. Staff, people using the service, relatives, and external professionals were actively encouraged to contribute to the ongoing development and continuous improvement of the service.

The provider maintained effective partnerships with the local community and relevant organisations, supporting a coordinated and collaborative approach to delivering high-quality care.

The quality assurance and governance systems were in place to monitor the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the service. These processes supported continuous learning, identified areas for improvement, and helped drive positive outcomes for people using the service. The registered manager shared their service improvement plan with us, and we observed some improvement had already made.