Rated Care Homes

Balmoral Care Home

This service is registered but is not currently providing care.

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 6 ratings

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

  • 11 months

    since the latest rating was published.

Balmoral Care Home: inspection record

Care home, 33 beds, Tameside

Rated Requires improvement in November 2025, down from Good.

Balmoral Care 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: Lowry House (Good, 1.4 miles away) and Staley House Care Home (Good, 1.8 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Lowry House Good, 1.4 miles away
  2. RI
    Millbrook House Requires improvement, 1.4 miles away
  3. RI
    Regency Hall Requires improvement, 1.7 miles away
  4. G
    Staley House Care Home Good, 1.8 miles away
  5. RI
    The Sycamores Requires improvement, 1.8 miles away

See all care homes in Tameside

See all care homes in Stalybridge

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 4 November 2025 (assessment visit 3 September 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

This inspection was undertaken with site visits on the 10th, 11th, and 15th of September 2025.

Balmoral Care Home is a residential service providing personal care for up to 33 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection, 27 people were living at the home. The inspection was brought forward due to concerns regarding the management of falls.

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

While we did not find evidence to suggest that falls were being managed inappropriately, we identified areas for improvement in record-keeping and oversight related to this aspect of care.

During the inspection, we found breaches of legal regulations relating to the management of risk associated with medicines and the environment. We also identified concerns regarding governance and oversight, including the monitoring of care records, maintaining contemporaneous documentation, and taking timely action in response to identified shortfalls.

Whilst people felt safe, there was a lack of oversight to ensure action was taken in response to shortfalls. Care plans were in place but were not always detailed, consistent or personalised and daily records did not reflect that care was being given in line with agreed plans. There was limited evidence that people or families had been involved in decisions around care. Staff were not always readily available to provide timely support to people, and this impacted on the levels of care, mental stimulation and activities people could engage with.

People spoke positively about the food and people’s weight was generally stable. There was evidence that the provider and staff worked closely with other stakeholders to meet people’s needs. Staff knew people well and were able to identify changes in their health and make appropriate referrals. There was limited evidence of how consent was sought from people in terms of decisions around care or daily life.

People spoke highly of the staff team, and we observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people. Whilst staff knew people well, they were often very busy and forgot to consider people’s dignity when providing support, for example by moving a person in a toileting sling in the communal areas, not removing the sling whilst people were sat in lounge chairs, or forgetting to remove clothes protector after people had eaten.

Care plans were not always sufficiently personalised and there was a lack of opportunities for staff to engage with people and provide stimulation and activities. Staff worked hard to try and fill shortfalls due to the challenge of recruiting an activity worker. People were supported to have access to visiting community groups and occasional trips out into the community and the provider worked with other health services to meet people’s needs. There were numerous compliments from families whose relatives had been cared for at the home prior to their death.

There were some shortfalls in the oversight maintained from the provider and registered manager. Audits were completed but these did not always cover relevant areas or lead to the required action being completed in a timely way. Staff had mixed experiences and had not always felt supported by the management team. Whilst a recent survey had been completed there was limited evidence of action taken in response, at the time of our visit. The registered manager was working with the local stakeholders to develop an action plan and was committed to driving improvements where these were needed.

  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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 safely.

  2. Effective

    No rating

    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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

  3. 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

  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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Registration details

Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

3 inspection reports, latest 2 April 2022. Latest assessment published 4 November 2025; 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
12306461 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Tameside Metropolitan Borough 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 Balmoral Care Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Balmoral Care Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Balmoral Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 33 beds at Balmoral Care Home.
When was Balmoral Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Balmoral Care Home was published on 4 November 2025.
Who runs Balmoral Care Home?
Balmoral Care Home is run by Cartwright Care Balmoral Management Ltd.
What is Balmoral Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 4 November 2025.

Contact

Phone
01457 765879
Address
29 Old Road, Mottram, Hyde, SK14 6LW Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Lowry House (Good, 1.4 miles away) and Staley House Care Home (Good, 1.8 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Lowry House Good, 1.4 miles away
  2. RI
    Millbrook House Requires improvement, 1.4 miles away
  3. RI
    Regency Hall Requires improvement, 1.7 miles away
  4. G
    Staley House Care Home Good, 1.8 miles away
  5. RI
    The Sycamores Requires improvement, 1.8 miles away

See all care homes in Tameside

See all care homes in Stalybridge