Ealing Manor Nursing Home

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 28 October 2026 (assessment visit 6 July 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

   This is the first assessment for this service since registered as a partnership in 2024. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

   This meant people were not always protected from the risk of avoidable harm.

   The service was in breach of legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment (Regulation 12) and good governance (Regulation 17). We found shortfalls in risk management, staffing, infection prevention and control, medicines management and environmental safety. The provider's systems had not consistently identified, monitored or addressed these risks.

2. Effective

   –No rating No rating

   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.

   This is the first assessment for this service since registered as a partnership in 2024. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

   This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

   The service was in breach of legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment (Regulation 12) and good governance (Regulation 17). People's needs, risks and outcomes were not always accurately assessed, recorded or effectively monitored. Care records did not consistently provide staff with clear guidance or demonstrate that professional advice and interventions were effectively incorporated into care planning.

3. Caring

   –No rating No rating

   Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

   This is the first assessment for this service since registered as a partnership in 2024. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

   This meant people did not always experience consistently compassionate, person-centred care. Although people generally described positive relationships with staff, some people experienced delays in receiving support and limited opportunities for meaningful engagement, independence and choice.

4. Responsive

   –No rating No rating

   Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

   This is the first assessment for this service since registered as a partnership in 2024. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

   This meant people’s needs were not always met.

   The service was in breach of legal regulation relating to good governance (Regulation 17). The provider did not consistently demonstrate that people's feedback was effectively monitored, analysed and used to identify themes and drive service-wide improvement.

5. Well-led

   –No rating 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.

   This is the first assessment for this service since registered as a partnership in 2024. This key question has been rated 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 relating to good governance (Regulation 17). Governance and quality assurance systems were not consistently effective in identifying, monitoring and addressing risks and shortfalls in the quality and safety of the service. Improvements identified through external scrutiny had not always been fully implemented or sustained.