The Old Rectory

Our view of the service About the service TheOld Rectory is a care home providing accommodation and nursing care for up to 38 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia.The service also provides additional support to meet a range of short and longer-term care and rehabilitation needs. Who the service is for The service supports older people and people living with dementia. Key findings We carried out this assessment on 27 July 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 although DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen, the principles of the MCA were not always being followed by staff in relation to the use of CCTV within the service. Despite some people lacking capacity, there were no capacity assessments or best interests decisions undertaken for the use of CCTV however, staff had followed the correct procedures in relation to other potential restrictions. These assessments help ensure decisions are made lawfully and in the person's best interests when they lack capacity. However, staff understood the MCA and told us, “It’s making sure people make decisions for themselves. They may be able to make a small decision, but not complex decisions and understand the risks. We carried out a mini mental capacity test and apply for a DoLS if needed. We would involve any advocates.” Although we identified some small shortfalls within the service which included a medicines counting error, an unreported incident and no risk assessment for 1 person who took their medicines off-site at times, we found the service had maintained their good rating. Management had good oversight of the service and following our inspection sent us evidence of actions taken in response to the shortfalls we had found. This included actions taken in response to feedback from people who told us activities and food could be improved. During our visit we noticed staff called everyone by their prefix despite a lack of evidence this was people’s preference. We raised this following our visit and management told us they would carry out a complete review of people’s wishes. The service demonstrated a strong commitment to innovation by introducing a range of digital systems that enhanced oversight and accountability within the service. Staff could report maintenance issues instantly using handheld devices. A digital dining system promoted safe, person-centred care by recording people's meal choices while automatically highlighting any dietary requirements. Staff deployment was calculated using a digital workload allocation tool and medicines practices were strengthened through the use of a wireless temperature monitoring system in clinical rooms. Staff told us they felt fully supported by their colleagues and management, telling us, “The support is amazing. Work-wise they listen, they’re helpful”, “They teach us a lot and are very good listeners. They listen to our views and everything” and “They (management) say if you ever need a hand they are always there. I would feel confident to speak up.” Staff were well trained and went through a robust induction process when commencing at the service. One staff member told us, “When I came they gave me shadowing, trial and computer training and competency check.” Another said, “The training and support is great.” To support staff to develop skills, confidence, competence and progress individually, The Old Rectory operated as a diploma centre and promoted vocational learning and progression. The service recruited staff from overseas to complement the existing staff team and did not use agency staff. This helped ensure people were cared for by a consistent staff team. There were sufficient, appropriately deployed, staff on duty and staff told us they felt there were enough of them to meet people’s needs. Staff commented, “I think we’re very lucky with staffing levels”, “Our floor is well managed so we manage all the time”, “Quite recently we had less staff on the floor. We raised this with management and they put an extra carer in the afternoon” and “I feel like I am not overwhelmed by work. I have time with my residents.” Staff supported people to retain their independence and recognised the need to keep them safe. Staff told us, “It’s about not rushing people and promoting them to do as much for themselves as possible. We could put someone in a wheelchair – it would be quicker. But we encourage them to be as independent as possible and walk themselves, even if it’s for a short distance”, “We are always checking their surroundings and make sure we keep their bell within their reach. We have a chair and bed sensors.” Staff monitored and improved people’s outcomes as the service provided both long and short-term stays and had an in-house physiotherapist for long-term residents as well as rehabilitation and post-operative recovery. Accidents and incidents were responded to, recorded and analysed for themes and trends. Action was taken to prevent reoccurrence such as introducing a chair sensor for 1 person. Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people. A staff member told us that if they had concerns, “I would contact the [local authority] safeguarding team and CQC. We have the number here to be able to contact them.” People’s needs were assessed prior to moving in. A staff member said, “If they come from hospital we get some information from them (the hospital) and we get their previous medical history. We will speak to the resident as well. Then we will fill out the care plan and then review it.” The service had good governance arrangements in place. Audits were carried out on a regular basis to check the quality of the service. Staff meetings were held so staff were involved and resident meetings were convened. Each year, a survey was conducted with residents, relatives, professionals and staff to ensure everyone had the opportunity to give their feedback. Staff had access to a hub which gave them a central point for communication, policies, risk assessments, forms, training resources, rotas, role information, safeguarding resources and the service’s values and mission.