Rated Care Homes

Southlands Court Residential Home

  • Care home
  • 26 beds
  • No nursing
  • Dementia care
  • Registered since 2016
  • Devon, South West
RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 5 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 9 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 28 of 283

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

Southlands Court Residential Home: inspection record

Care home, 26 beds, Devon

Rated Requires improvement in January 2026, down from Good.

Southlands Court Residential 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: Fairfield Country Rest Home (Good, 2.5 miles away) and St Anne's Residential Home Limited (Good, 2.7 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Fairfield Country Rest Home Good, 2.5 miles away
  2. G
    St Anne's Residential Home Limited Good, 2.7 miles away
  3. –
    Deer Park Nursing Home Not yet rated, 3.8 miles away
  4. G
    The Roses Good, 4 miles away
  5. G
    Sunrays Good, 4.1 miles away

See all care homes in Devon

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 8 January 2026 (assessment visit 29 September 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 30 October to 27 November 2025. We visited the service on 30 October and 4 November 2025. Southlands Court Residential Home is a residential care home providing care and support to a maximum of 26 older people. At the time of our assessment there were 20 people living at the home.

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

The assessment was carried out as we had continuing concerns in relation to delays in seeking medical attention when people’s health had deteriorated, and poor escalation of risks to relevant health professionals.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

The service was currently in a whole service safeguarding (WSS) process coordinated by Devon County Council due to concerns in relation to the lack of identification and escalation of people’s risks to relevant health professionals. This was the second time, in close succession, the service had been in a WSS process due to similar concerns. The last time was between February and May 2025. Southlands Court was receiving support from various health and social care professionals to improve safety in the service and their governance systems and processes. As a result of this support, improvements had been made as agreed at the follow-up WSS meeting on 13 November 2025.

Staff were increasingly adopting a proactive culture regarding health and safety incidents or concerns. Risk management had improved and staff were escalating risks to relevant professionals in a more timely way. This work needed embedding and sustaining in practice. Professionals confirmed the service were escalating risk more effectively, but felt further work was needed to maintain safe systems of care.

The provider had invested in the premises. Fire safety management had improved and protected people and others within the building. The provider undertook regular health and safety checks of the premises as part of their auditing system. Risks associated with the storage of substances hazardous to health were well managed. Safety systems and equipment used at the service were maintained and serviced at regular intervals to make sure these remained in good order and safe for use.

There were incomplete recruitment records for some members of staff, which the provider had already identified and was addressing. Staff were deployed in line with people’s assessed care and support needs. The provider was recruiting additional staff.

Medicines management practices had improved. However, further work was needed to embed the improvements in practice. There were effective infection control measures.

People had care and support plans, which required further work to ensure they were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs. Care and support plans were being reviewed at pace, in collaboration with people, and personalised detail was being added as part of the provider’s service improvement plan.

Daily notes and monitoring charts did not always evidence care and support plans were being followed. It was established this was a recording issue only. This was being addressed through increased monitoring by the management team and the introduction of daily checks, and reinforcement with staff of the importance of accurate clinical documentation for both safety and regulatory assurance. As a result of the additional scrutiny, compliance was improving. The provider recognised improvements needed to be sustained and embedded in practice.

On one occasion, undignified terminology was used by a member of staff. This was in relation to a description of how people were supported with their meals. We discussed this with the management team who addressed this through implementing guidance and sourcing additional training for staff.

During our first day on-site, we saw limited staff engagement with people which was meaningful. Care and support was task orientated. On our second day, this had improved and staff were engaging well with people.

The provider had recruited a care consultant to support the service in moving forward to ensure people received safe, effective and high quality care. They had also appointed a new home manager, who would be registering with the Care Quality Commission. They were due to start in post a few days after our visits to Southlands Court.

The provider was alert to any examples of a poor culture which may impact on the safety and quality of people’s care and support. They informed us they were establishing a more robust framework to ensure all performance and conduct issues were formally documented and managed in line with policies and procedures, should action needed to be taken to mitigate future risks.

Improvements had been made to how the provider assessed, monitored and improved the quality and safety of the service. Risks were increasingly being mitigated, and governance systems were identifying areas where improvements were needed. These systems and processes needed embedding and sustaining within the service.

The service improvement plan evidenced extensive work was being undertaken to ensure people received safe, effective and high quality care. This, coupled with the increased positive collaboration with health and social care professionals, including the local authority, demonstrated the provider’s goal to deliver equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. This work needed to continue to be sustained and embedded in practice.

  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.

  2. 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. 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.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 8 January 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 8 January 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  3. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 8 January 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered manager
Sarah Bracher
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Sensory Impairment

Inspection report

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

4 inspection reports, latest 14 August 2019. Latest assessment published 8 January 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

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
09947007 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Devon County 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 Southlands Court Residential Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Southlands Court Residential Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Southlands Court Residential Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 26 beds at Southlands Court Residential Home.
When was Southlands Court Residential Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Southlands Court Residential Home was published on 8 January 2026.
Who runs Southlands Court Residential Home?
Southlands Court Residential Home is run by Thanweer Care Limited.
What is Southlands Court Residential Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 8 January 2026.

Contact

Phone
01288 381631
Address
Bridgerule, Holsworthy, EX22 7EW Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Fairfield Country Rest Home (Good, 2.5 miles away) and St Anne's Residential Home Limited (Good, 2.7 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Fairfield Country Rest Home Good, 2.5 miles away
  2. G
    St Anne's Residential Home Limited Good, 2.7 miles away
  3. –
    Deer Park Nursing Home Not yet rated, 3.8 miles away
  4. G
    The Roses Good, 4 miles away
  5. G
    Sunrays Good, 4.1 miles away

See all care homes in Devon