Lavender Fields

Date of assessment: 21 July to 31 July 2026. The service is a residential home providing accommodation and personal care for older people and people living with dementia. The service can support 75 people across 3 floors. There were 48 people living in the service at the time of assessment.
This assessment was undertaken to follow up on enforcement action taken following our previous assessment when the service was rated inadequate (published 16 October 2025). At the last assessment, we found the provider was in breach of 7 legal regulations. These related to person-centred care, dignity and respect, need for consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding from abuse and improper treatment, good governance and staffing. We checked to confirm if the provider had made the required improvements and the enforcement action taken had been complied with.
At this assessment we found a number of improvements had been made and although some further improvement was necessary, we were confident the provider was working towards full compliance with regulations. Stable leadership was now in place with a registered manager supported by a revised senior management structure. Staff training, safeguarding processes, care planning, maintaining people’s dignity and respect, healthcare engagement and staffing arrangements had all improved. People, relatives and staff consistently described a more positive culture, improved communication and a better quality of care. Care plans were more person-centred, healthcare needs were better managed, and safeguarding concerns were appropriately recognised and referred. Staff morale had improved and there was evidence of a stronger focus on people's individual needs and outcomes.
However, some improvements were not yet fully embedded. Medicines management remained an area of concern and systems were not always effective in ensuring medicines were managed safely. Processes to evidence compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had improved but remained inconsistent. People who lacked capacity to make specific decisions could not always be assured decisions affecting them were supported by sufficiently robust assessments and best-interest processes. Governance systems had improved but were not yet consistently effective in identifying and addressing issues relating to medicines management, the quality of care planning and individual risk assessment and learning from incidents.