Rated Care Homes

Drovers House

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.

  • 3 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 30 of 153

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

Drovers House: inspection record

Care home, 75 beds, Warwickshire

Rated Requires improvement in July 2026, down from Good.

Drovers House: 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: Rugby Care Centre (Good, 0.4 miles away) and Butlers Mews Care Home (Good, 0.6 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. –
    Daisy Court Not yet rated, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Rugby Care Centre Good, 0.4 miles away
  3. RI
    Granville House Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  4. RI
    Te Hira Care Home Limited Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  5. G
    Butlers Mews Care Home Good, 0.6 miles away

See all care homes in Warwickshire

See all care homes in Rugby

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 3 July 2026 (assessment visit 15 April 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of inspection: 8th to 11th June 2026.

Drovers House is a residential care home for up to 75 people, including younger and older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 66 people living in the home. The home is set over 3 floors, split into 6 households which each include personalised bathrooms, lounges, kitchenettes and dining areas. This inspection was undertaken as an aged rating, and we reviewed all 5 key questions under our single assessment framework.

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

We identified 2 breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

Essential information in people’s care plans was missing, inaccurate or not reflective of their current needs. Care plans did not always identify and mitigate known risks to people. This meant staff did not always have the information required to deliver safe care and people were exposed to ongoing risks such as falls, choking and weight loss. Governance systems had not identified or addressed these issues and audits failed to detect concerns, such as gaps in risk management, environmental safety issues and inconsistent staff practice. Systems intended to monitor quality and safety were not effective, and the provider had not ensured that policies, procedures and care documentation reflected best practice or regulatory expectations. As a result, people remained at risk of avoidable harm.

Despite these failings, there was a positive, caring culture within the home.

Staff consistently described good communication across teams and told us they felt supported and confident in their roles. They spoke with pride about the care they delivered and demonstrated a strong commitment to treating people as individuals. Staff recognised the importance of people’s personal histories, preferences and identities and used this knowledge to build meaningful relationships, however, this was not consistently supported by effective systems to ensure safe or personalised care.

The activities team ensured people had opportunities for engagement that reflected their interests, through community outings, group sessions and personalised activities for those who preferred to spend time in their rooms. Staff described how taking an interest in people helped them feel ‘valued, respected and seen,’ reinforcing a culture of dignity and individuality.

Staff were trained and supported to carry out their roles effectively. They told us they received the training they needed and felt able to approach leaders for guidance. The registered manager was relatively new in post but had worked in the home previously. Staff knew them well and felt confident in their ability to respond to concerns effectively.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found during this inspection.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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.

  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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. However, leaders and the culture they created supported the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 3 July 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 July 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
Joseph Maskell
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

3 inspection reports, latest 12 February 2020. Latest assessment published 3 July 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
02713150 (opens Companies House)
Charity number
1012788

WCS Care Group Limited runs 13 services, all in the West Midlands. 8 are rated Good or Outstanding and 5 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by WCS Care Group Limited

  1. G
    Castle Brook Good. Care home, Warwickshire
  2. G
    Dewar Close Good. Care home, Warwickshire
  3. G
    Fairfield Good. Care home, Warwickshire
  4. G
    Four Ways Good. Care home, Warwickshire

See all 13 services run by WCS Care Group Limited

Getting help from Warwickshire 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 Drovers House provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Drovers House as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Drovers House have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 75 beds at Drovers House.
When was Drovers House last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Drovers House was published on 3 July 2026.
Who runs Drovers House?
Drovers House is run by WCS Care Group Limited. It runs 13 services, all in the West Midlands.
What is Drovers House's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 3 July 2026.

Contact

Phone
01788 573955
Address
Drover Close, Rugby, CV21 3HX Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Rugby Care Centre (Good, 0.4 miles away) and Butlers Mews Care Home (Good, 0.6 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. –
    Daisy Court Not yet rated, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Rugby Care Centre Good, 0.4 miles away
  3. RI
    Granville House Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  4. RI
    Te Hira Care Home Limited Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  5. G
    Butlers Mews Care Home Good, 0.6 miles away

See all care homes in Warwickshire

See all care homes in Rugby