Regency Hall
- Care home
- 68 beds
- No nursing
- Dementia care
- Registered since 2025
- Derbyshire, East Midlands
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.
4 months
since the latest rating was published.
41 of 219
rated care homes in Derbyshire are rated Requires improvement, like this one.
Regency Hall: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in June 2026.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Willowbank (Outstanding, 0.4 miles away) and The Risings Residential Home for the Elderly (Outstanding, 1.6 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- RI Hope Valley Nursing Home Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
- O Willowbank Outstanding, 0.4 miles away
- RI Millbrook House Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away
- RI Pendlebury Court Care Home Requires improvement, 1.6 miles away
- O The Risings Residential Home for the Elderly Outstanding, 1.6 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 10 June 2026 (assessment visit 31 March 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of assessment: 28 April to 12 May 2026. The service is a residential care home providing support to adults, some of whom live with dementia and/or a physical disability. The service is registered to support up to 68 people. At the time of our inspection, 28 people were living at the service.
- Safe No rating
- Effective Good
- Caring Good
- Responsive No rating
- Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary
Theproviderwas previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and theproviderremained in breach of these regulations.
The provider did not consistently involve people in understanding or managing risks, and this limited people’s ability to make informed decisions about their care. We identified several concerns in relation to medicines management, meaning people were not always protected from avoidable harm. Although people’s care plans were reviewed regularly, these reviews did not always identify the shortfalls we found during the inspection. Stakeholders also told us information was not always shared with them in a timely or effective manner, which impacted partnership working. The provider did not always ensure people had equitable access to the care, support and equipment they required.
Governance systems were not consistently effective in identifying risks, monitoring practice or ensuring that actions from the provider’s own improvement plans were fully implemented. This demonstrated a lack of robust oversight to ensure care was delivered safely and in line with assessed needs.
Despite these concerns, the provider was keen to drive improvements and had begun introducing new systems and processes to strengthen the quality of care. However, these changes were not yet fully embedded, and further work was required to ensure improvements were sustained and translated into consistent, safe practice across the service.
The provider had systems in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse and to identify and control potential risks within the care environment. Infection prevention measures were effectively assessed and managed. People were supported in ways that recognised their individuality and reflected a person‑centred approach.
Leaders demonstrated the skills, knowledge and credibility needed to guide the service effectively. They promoted a positive and open culture where people and staff felt confident to speak up and raise concerns, contributing to a supportive and transparent environment.
-
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 as requires improvement.
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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and the ways people’s medicines were managed.
-
Effective
Good
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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.
Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
-
Caring
Good
Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.
Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
-
Responsive
No rating
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement.
Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.
-
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 as requires improvement.
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 in relation to governance at the service.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 10 June 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 10 June 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.
- Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 10 June 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
Registration details
- Registered manager
- Louise Foster
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service without nursing
- Who it supports
- Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults
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
- Provider
- Harbour Healthcare LtdBrand: Harbour Healthcare
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 07864027 (opens Companies House)
Harbour Healthcare Ltd runs 12 services in England, 1 of them in the East Midlands. 7 are rated Good or Outstanding and 5 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.
Other services run by Harbour Healthcare Ltd
- G Bentley Manor Good. Care home with nursing, Cheshire East, North West
- G Devonshire House and Lodge Good. Care home with nursing, Devon, South West
- G Elburton Heights Good. Care home with nursing, Plymouth, South West
- G Gotton Manor Good. Care home with nursing, Somerset, South West
Getting help from Derbyshire County Council
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at Derbyshire County Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 01629 533190, Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Derbyshire County Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Regency Hall provide nursing care?
- No. The Care Quality Commission lists Regency Hall as a care home without nursing.
- How many beds does Regency Hall have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 68 beds at Regency Hall.
- When was Regency Hall last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Regency Hall was published on 10 June 2026.
- Who runs Regency Hall?
- Regency Hall is run by Harbour Healthcare Ltd. It runs 12 services in England, 1 of them in the East Midlands.
- What is Regency Hall's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 10 June 2026.
Contact
- Phone
- 01457 891710
- Address
- The Carriage Drive, Hadfield, Glossop, SK13 1PJ Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Willowbank (Outstanding, 0.4 miles away) and The Risings Residential Home for the Elderly (Outstanding, 1.6 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- RI Hope Valley Nursing Home Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
- O Willowbank Outstanding, 0.4 miles away
- RI Millbrook House Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away
- RI Pendlebury Court Care Home Requires improvement, 1.6 miles away
- O The Risings Residential Home for the Elderly Outstanding, 1.6 miles away