Highgrove House Residential Care Home

Who the service is for

The service supports older people and people living with dementia.

Our view of the service

We carried out this assessment on 09 April to 14 April 2026 to confirm that the previous rating of good remains accurate. Where we found that practice has continued to meet a good standard, we have not reported in detail on these areas and have focused our findings on any areas where improvement was needed or where exceptional practice was found.

Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse; they were knowledgeable about what concerns they would need to report and to whom. Risk assessments had been conducted to ensure people were supported with their health conditions; however, we identified further detail was needed to provide thorough guidance to staff. The registered manager told us they would review care records to ensure they contained further information. Staff had received appropriate training to support people and met their needs well. There were enough staff to support people, they were recruited safely and received ongoing supervisions to promote wellbeing and development.

Lessons learned were shared with staff in response to incidents and accidents, reviews ensured trends and themes were identified; risk assessments were updated and professionals were engaged to provide advice. The environment was designed and decorated to suit people’s needs. Environmental risks were assessed and mitigated, equipment was serviced and the signage and layout of the building promoted safety and independence for people. People could easily access the garden which had raised beds and seating areas.

People had opportunities to visit and spend time at the service prior to moving in, this also supported the assessment process. People’s initial views were captured and where appropriate, their relatives and professionals were engaged. Nationally recognised assessment tools were used to ascertain people’s risk of skin breakdown, nutrition and pain levels. Staff monitored people’s health changes and escalated concerns to professionals. Where people may experience distress in their dementia, techniques were used, alongside an activity schedule which kept people stimulated and engaged. Formal consent had been sought from people or their legal representatives, staff continually offered choices and asked permission from people before they supported them.

Staff spoke to and about people with warmth, acknowledged their individuality and respected their dignity. People dressed as they wished, staff used their preferred nicknames and respected their preference of communication. Activity sessions included music, quizzes and arts and crafts, people’s artwork was displayed around the service in frames. People were enabled to remain as independent as possible, this included when attending trips out. Staff gave examples of how people’s independence was promoted and we observed people using adapted equipment to support this.

People received person-centred care by staff who understood their backgrounds and histories. Most staff had worked at the service for many years and had developed close working relationships with people. People were enabled to personalise their space. People and their relative’s comments, suggestions and complaints were taken seriously. They had opportunities to air their views at meetings and confidential discussions with the registered manager, their feedback was listened to and acted upon.

The registered manager and their team fostered an open culture where everyone’s thoughts and feelings were considered. Staff and people were kept up to date and consulted on changes within the service. The registered manager described striving for a harmonious service and considered whether new people would be happy at the service and their dynamics with others living there. Quality checks were in place and areas in need of improvement were identified and addressed. Links had been formed with managers from the provider’s other services to share information, support and good practice. The registered manager told us of collaborative working with a university which resulted in better outcomes for people.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager and the running of the service from staff and professionals. Some of their comments included, “In short, they are brilliant. All members of staff are professional, caring, compassionate, and friendly. Their dedication and support truly make a difference, and it is clear they are committed to providing the highest standard of care.” And, “I have never come across a manager with so much energy and enthusiasm, the effort she puts in I don’t know how she does it. She has been fantastic and values all of us. I love working alongside her, she is bubbly and chatty and one of the team.”

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 principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (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.