Rated Care Homes

The Old School House Care Home

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 1 rating

    Only one rating on record, so there is no trend to show yet.

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 17 of 83

    rated care homes in Plymouth are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

The Old School House Care Home: inspection record

Care home, 36 beds, Plymouth

Rated Requires improvement in August 2026.

The Old School House Care Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Merafield View Nursing Home (Good, 0.1 miles away) and Plymbridge House (Good, 0.4 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Merafield View Nursing Home Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. –
    Ashleigh Manor Residential Care Home No overall rating, 0.4 miles away
  3. G
    Plymbridge House Good, 0.4 miles away
  4. G
    Meadowside and St. Francis Good, 0.5 miles away
  5. G
    Stone Barton Short Break Good, 0.5 miles away

See all care homes in Plymouth

See all care homes in Plympton

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 4 August 2026 (assessment visit 27 May 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 3 June 2026 and 11 June 2026. The assessment was carried out in response to concerns raised about safety, medicines and leadership.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

The Old School House Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 36 people, including older people and people living with dementia, mental health conditions and physical disabilities. At the time of our assessment there were 22 people living at the service.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations in relation to premises and equipment and good governance. At this assessment shortfalls remained, which meant the provider had not taken sufficient action to ensure consistent standards of quality and safety across the service. The provider remained in breach of legal regulations related to premises and equipment, and good governance. We also identified a further 2 breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and dignity and respect.

At this assessment, we found concerns relating to people’s safety, the quality of care provided and the effectiveness of governance systems. These concerns were reflected across multiple quality statements and demonstrated a service where systems to ensure safe, effective and high-quality care were not consistently in place or embedded.

We observed poor moving and handling techniques and identified unsafe practices which did not follow best practice guidance. Risks associated with nutrition, hydration and skin integrity were not consistently managed safely. Medicines management systems were not always effective, and audits had not identified some gaps such as missing ‘when required’ (PRN) protocols. Environmental risks were not well managed. We found fire safety checks, equipment checks and legionella monitoring were not consistently completed, and some fire doors were not functioning effectively.

Care was not always delivered in line with people’s assessed needs. We identified inconsistencies between care plans and the care people received, including records which did not accurately reflect care delivery. Some people were not supported in a person-centred way, and there was evidence of poor communication and limited engagement.

Leadership and governance were not always effective. There had been instability in the management of the service, with no registered manager in post at the time of our assessment. Governance systems were in place, however these systems were not consistently embedded in identifying, acting on, and sustaining improvements. Audits had identified concerns, including environmental and safety risks, but action had not always been taken or maintained. There was evidence repeated issues identified at our previous assessment had not been fully addressed, including cleanliness and lack of meaningful activity.

Overall, we found ongoing and widespread concerns relating to safety, care delivery and governance. These issues had a direct impact on people’s experience of care, including their safety, dignity and wellbeing.

The provider was working alongside the local authority team and other professionals as part of a safeguarding process. The provider had implemented an action plan to make improvements within the service. Since our assessment as part of local authority safeguarding process, professionals have told us the service is making improvements to the quality of care.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns identified at this assessment.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

  1. 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to premises and equipment. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. In addition, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment.

  2. Effective

    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.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

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

    The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect, safe care and treatment and good governance.

  3. 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 provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 4 August 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 4 August 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 4 August 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
07239882 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Plymouth City Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does The Old School House Care Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists The Old School House Care Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does The Old School House Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 36 beds at The Old School House Care Home.
When was The Old School House Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for The Old School House Care Home was published on 4 August 2026.
Who runs The Old School House Care Home?
The Old School House Care Home is run by The Old School House Care Home (South West) Ltd.
What is The Old School House Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 4 August 2026.

Contact

Phone
01752 330470
Address
38 Merafield Road, Plymouth, PL7 1TL Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Merafield View Nursing Home (Good, 0.1 miles away) and Plymbridge House (Good, 0.4 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Merafield View Nursing Home Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. –
    Ashleigh Manor Residential Care Home No overall rating, 0.4 miles away
  3. G
    Plymbridge House Good, 0.4 miles away
  4. G
    Meadowside and St. Francis Good, 0.5 miles away
  5. G
    Stone Barton Short Break Good, 0.5 miles away

See all care homes in Plymouth

See all care homes in Plympton