Rated Care Homes

Grace House Care Home Limited

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

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

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 56 of 302

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

Grace House Care Home Limited: inspection record

Care home, 22 beds, Surrey

Rated Requires improvement in August 2026, down from Good.

Grace House Care Home Limited: 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: Ridgway Court (Good, 0.8 miles away) and Waverley Grange Care Home (Good, 0.8 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. –
    The Woodlarks Centre No overall rating, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Ridgway Court Good, 0.8 miles away
  3. G
    Waverley Grange Care Home Good, 0.8 miles away
  4. G
    Anchorstone Nursing Home Good, 1 mile away
  5. G
    Hatch Mill Good, 1.3 miles away

See all care homes in Surrey

See all care homes in Compton

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 3 August 2026 (assessment visit 24 June 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 25 June 2026

Grace House Care Home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 22 people. These include people with health and medical conditions or living with dementia. At the time of our assessment, 21 people were living at the service.

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

During this visit, we found breaches of regulation in governance processes and safe care and treatment.

Governance processes needed to improve to ensure the registered manager identified any shortfalls in the service. This included individual audits, accidents and incident records and medicines administration. Effective governance processes would also enable them to check staff were meeting expected standards and providing person-centred care to people consistently.

Information about people, particularly in relation to their individual risks, needed strengthening to ensure staff had sufficient guidance in place to follow. There was also a need to improve monitoring of people’s health, so it was consistent.

The registered manager could not be assured the environment in which people lived was free from the risk of infection or that it was consistently safe. We found areas throughout the building which could not be cleaned properly, causing a risk to people of avoidable infections, this included poor maintenance as well as trip hazards.

Although staffing levels were as planned by the service, people said they had to wait to go to bed and records indicated people also waited in the morning at times to be supported to get up.

Staff were not recruited through robust processes, and they were not being given the opportunity to meet with their line manager on a regular basis to discuss their role.

Medicines practices required improvement, especially in relation to the storage of medicines as we found items were being stored at temperatures above the manufacturers’ recommendations. This meant there was a risk they would not be effective.

Further work was needed to ensure activities were person-centred and based on people’s likes, preferences and choices.

Staff however liked working at the service and felt valued and supported by management. They told us the training they received was good and that they felt they knew people.

The registered manager was very responsive to our feedback during and after the assessment and immediately started to act on the areas we had identified. They continued to communicate with us following the visit and updating us on progress made.

  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 safe care and treatment and the way people’s medicines were managed.

  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

    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 good governance at the service.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 3 August 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 3 August 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  3. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.

Registration details

Registered manager
Juliana Haddaji
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People

Inspection report

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

3 inspection reports, latest 3 February 2018. Latest assessment published 3 August 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
07195521 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Surrey 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 Grace House Care Home Limited provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Grace House Care Home Limited as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Grace House Care Home Limited have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 22 beds at Grace House Care Home Limited.
When was Grace House Care Home Limited last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Grace House Care Home Limited was published on 3 August 2026.
Who runs Grace House Care Home Limited?
Grace House Care Home Limited is run by Grace House Care Home Limited.
What is Grace House Care Home Limited's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 3 August 2026.

Contact

Phone
01252 726406
Address
71 Lodge Hill Road, Lower Bourne, Farnham, GU10 3RB Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Ridgway Court (Good, 0.8 miles away) and Waverley Grange Care Home (Good, 0.8 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. –
    The Woodlarks Centre No overall rating, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Ridgway Court Good, 0.8 miles away
  3. G
    Waverley Grange Care Home Good, 0.8 miles away
  4. G
    Anchorstone Nursing Home Good, 1 mile away
  5. G
    Hatch Mill Good, 1.3 miles away

See all care homes in Surrey

See all care homes in Compton