Enter and view: Addison Court

Healthwatch Lancashire undertook an Enter and View visit on 27 October 2017 to assess the quality of care and environment at Addison Court, a 48‑bed residential care home for older people, including those living with dementia.

The visit found that Addison Court was generally welcoming, well‑located, and well‑maintained externally, with excellent pre‑visit communication and accessibility, both of which were rated highly. Internally, the home provided a pleasant, homely environment with comfortable communal areas, opportunities for social interaction, and facilities such as activity spaces, a café-style dining area, and a sensory room. Overall, the environment and facilities were rated positively at 4.3 out of 5. 

Observations showed that staff interactions with residents were warm, respectful, and person‑centred, with staff demonstrating awareness of residents’ preferences and encouraging participation in activities. Residents were treated with dignity and generally felt safe and able to raise concerns, although some found staff too busy to talk.

However, the report identified several areas for improvement. Concerns were raised about staffing levels and responsiveness, particularly delays in answering call bells and difficulties locating staff on the dementia unit at times. Some aspects of the environment also required attention, including maintenance issues, cleanliness concerns in places, and limited dementia‑friendly adaptations in certain areas. 

Feedback from residents showed mixed experiences. While many were satisfied with their rooms, food, and the overall atmosphere, others reported issues with privacy, cleanliness, and inconsistent support, especially during busy periods. Food was generally viewed positively and had improved with a new chef, although variety was sometimes lacking. Activities were available and appreciated, but some residents wanted more outings and a wider range of options, particularly opportunities to engage in different hobbies. 

The relative who provided feedback expressed more critical views, highlighting concerns about insufficient staffing, limited supervision, communication issues, and a lack of involvement in care planning. This respondent stated they would not recommend the service, although they acknowledged that staff worked hard and that serious concerns had been addressed when raised. 

Staff feedback was largely positive, with most reporting that they were happy in their roles and would recommend the home, although only some felt they had sufficient training or support to deliver fully person‑centred care.