Acorn

Key Findings

We carried out this assessment on 18 and 19 August 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 were supported by safely recruited staff who received an induction, supervision, and ongoing training in their roles. A staff member said, “Supervision is helpful, supportive and occurs regularly,” There was a stable and consistent staff team. Staff knew people well and had developed positive relationships with people living at the home. The service did not use agency staff. A staff member said, “We work really well as a team.”

The home was clean, tidy, and well maintained. People’s rooms were personalised to reflect their individuality. Regular checks on fire safety equipment and procedures were completed. People’s medicines were managed and administered safely. Risks to people were identified and guidance directed staff how to manage these. Staff knew how to identify and report any safeguarding concerns, accidents, or incidents. A staff member said, “We report anything of concern.” Communication systems ensured staff were updated with any changes in people’s care and support needs. Learning was shared and reflected upon to make changes where needed.

People were supported to visit and stay at the home as part of the assessment process to ensure they wished to live there, and the service could meet their needs. Regular reviews of people’s care and support were conducted. People were supported in their chosen aims and goals. People had support to attend appointments in regard to their mental and physical health. Relatives told us how staff supported people when a hospital admission was needed. A relative said, “Staff go with them. They are brilliant.” People and their relatives told us how the service provided a calm, caring and homely environment which supported their mental health well-being.

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 staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control, and freedom over their lives. Staff always gained consent from people and respected people’s choices.

People’s care plans were person centred and detailed how people wished to be supported and included their likes and dislikes. Feedback was sought from people, relatives and stakeholders and actions taken in response. The provider encouraged any feedback or complaints to be raised. Relatives told us concerns were well managed.

The service’s aims and ethos were well established. With documentation detailing the aims of, ‘Working together, supporting each other, putting people first. Together we create a happy, safe and supportive home.’ The nominated individual, registered manager and staff created a positive and open culture which put people at the centre of their care. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and were valued in their roles. A staff member said, “We are well supported. We are close knit team.” The home was well led and managed by the nominated individual and registered manager. Staff said, “Managers are very approachable,” and “We are very lucky to have managers like them.”

Governance systems assessed and monitored the quality and safety of the service. We identified where these systems needed strengthening to ensure some areas identified during this assessment were included. For example, in relation to 1 safeguarding notification which had not been submitted to CQC and potential risks from hot surfaces not being managed in line with the provider’s health and safety policies. These were addressed after the assessment. The service did not have a service development plan to demonstrate areas they had identified, reviewed and progressed for improvement. The provider said this would be actioned.