Hurst Place

Who the service is for

This service supports older people and younger adults, with a range of needs including frailty, physical health conditions, and dementia, who were living in their own homes.

We carried out this assessment on 16 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People received safe, person-centred care from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences, and routines. Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were assessed, monitored, and reviewed through a range of assessments, including falls, mobility, environmental and skin integrity assessments. Where incidents occurred, these were recorded, investigated, and reviewed appropriately, with learning identified and actions taken to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Systems were in place to identify patterns and trends and leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities for safeguarding and statutory notifications. Medicines support was provided safely and in line with people's assessed needs, with regular auditing and oversight arrangements in place.
People's needs were assessed before care commenced and care plans reflected their individual circumstances, strengths, and risks. Assessments considered physical health, mobility, capacity, and support requirements, and were used to develop person-centred care plans. Staff worked closely with people, families, and partners to ensure care remained responsive to changing needs. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how they managed this within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control, and freedom over their lives.

There were effective arrangements in place to recruit, support and develop staff. Recruitment processes included the checks required to ensure staff were suitable to work in care services. Staff completed induction, mandatory training and competency assessments relevant to their roles, and received regular supervision and spot checks to support their development and monitor practice. Leaders took positive action to address recruitment challenges by implementing contingency arrangements which helped maintain continuity of care. This included support from workers within the providers other services, and the use of a regular agency worker who had worked consistently at the service over an extended period, enabling positive relationships to develop with people using the service.

The service was responsive to people's changing needs. Reviews were completed regularly and additional reviews were undertaken when people's circumstances changed or concerns were identified. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care and support, and communication with families and partners was used to ensure care remained appropriate and effective.

Leaders had established governance and quality assurance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Care plans, medication records, incidents, staff practice and customer feedback were regularly reviewed and audited. The registered manager was supported by quality assurance and governance teams, providing additional oversight and monitoring. Staff and relatives described a positive and supportive culture where concerns could be raised openly and acted upon. The service demonstrated a commitment to maintaining people's independence, promoting choice and ensuring care remained centred on people's individual outcomes.