Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Sheerwater House

Requires improvementpublished 25 June 2025, 15 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2021

Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care and better management, but activities and some end-of-life planning still needed improvement.

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 14 October 2021. Inspectors spoke with seven people, staff, managers and six relatives. They observed care and reviewed care plans, activity records, complaints, audits and other records.

The home had improved since the previous inspection in November 2019. Dementia care and the environment had improved, and management systems were stronger. People were treated with respect, and relatives generally described staff as kind, caring and supportive.

The main remaining problem was activities. Some people had little to do, and staff did not consistently offer activities suited to each person. End-of-life care was respectful, but some care plans did not contain enough detail about what mattered to the person.

The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. However, Responsive remained Requires Improvement. Safe was inspected but not rated, and the other areas were not inspected during this focused visit.

What inspectors praised
  • Personalised care

    Care plans gave staff detailed information about people's needs, life histories, choices and preferences.

    “People received care and support that met their individual needs and reflected their choices and preferences.” from the report
  • Dementia support

    Staff used practical and individual approaches, such as memory boxes and a bus station in the garden, to help reduce distress and support independence.

    “Staff had worked creatively to help support people living with dementia.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People, relatives and inspectors described a caring service. Inspectors observed respectful and dignified interactions.

    “Staff were caring in their approach to the people they supported and at this inspection we saw people were treated with respect and dignity.” from the report
  • Stronger management systems

    The home had introduced regular audits and used incident reviews and an improvement plan to identify and address problems.

    “Audits reviewed areas including medicines management, infection control, health and safety, catering and other areas of care.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Activities were not consistent

    needs fixing

    Some people said there was little to do. Inspectors found that staff did not always consider how people who did not join group activities could take part in something meaningful.

    “Opportunities for people to engage with activities were available, however, staff's approach to activities was inconsistent which led to some people commenting that they felt there was little to do.” from the report
  • End-of-life plans lacked detail

    needs fixing

    End-of-life care was respectful, but some plans did not explain enough about what was important to the person.

    “However, end of life care plans were not always detailed and sometimes lacked information on what was important to the person.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What regular activities are now available for people who do not want to join group sessions?
  2. 02How do you record and review each person's interests and preferred activities?
  3. 03How will you make sure end-of-life care plans contain the person's wishes and what matters to them?
  4. 04What actions from the service improvement plan have been completed since this inspection?
  5. 05Which areas of care will be reviewed at the next full inspection?

This was a focused inspection of Responsive and Well-led, with infection prevention checked under Safe; the other ratings were not inspected and previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2020

Sheerwater House is rated Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but activities, care records and leadership still needed improvement.

This was an unannounced inspection on 25 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, training, complaints, incidents and quality checks.

The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, health needs were supported, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.

Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. People living with dementia did not always have suitable activities or an environment that supported stimulation. Care plans did not yet consistently include people's life histories and preferences. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection, but these needed to be maintained. The home was no longer rated Inadequate or in Special Measures.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines

    Medicines were organised, given when required and recorded correctly. Staff had guidance for medicines given as needed and for topical creams.

    “All MARs were completed correctly with no gaps in records.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People had good relationships with staff and were treated with dignity. Staff respected privacy, knocked before entering rooms and supported people's independence.

    “We witnessed kind and considerate interactions which showed affection between staff and people using the service.” from the report
  • Skilled and supported staff

    Staff completed induction and relevant training, including specialist training. They received supervision and were supported to become confident and competent.

    “All new staff completed an induction programme which included mandatory training and shadowing another experienced staff member.” from the report
  • Improved risk management

    The home had strengthened its assessments for falls, pressure injuries, choking, malnutrition, dehydration and other health risks. Staff had guidance about people's specific conditions.

    “People had appropriate guidance in place around risk to ensure it was robustly managed and reduced.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Dementia-friendly environment

    needs fixing

    The building did not always reflect the needs of people living with dementia. Inspectors found too little decoration and too few sensory features to make the environment dementia friendly.

    “People were living with dementia at Sheerwater House but there was a lack of decoration and sensory elements to make the home dementia friendly.” from the report
  • Activities for people with dementia

    needs fixing

    Some activities were available, but they were not always suitable for people living with dementia. During one activity, people could not understand the game and were not given individual support to join in.

    “People living at the home who lived with dementia did not have a variety of activities which were suitable for them and offered stimulation.” from the report
  • Care records not yet consistent

    needs fixing

    Care plans were being reviewed and some had improved, but not all contained enough information about people's life histories, likes and dislikes. The home needed more time to apply the improvements consistently.

    “People's care records did not consistently contain sufficient details about their life history, likes and dislikes.” from the report
  • Pressure at busy times

    minor

    Staffing was generally safe, but at busy times staff could become task focused and had less time to spend with people. The manager was considering an additional shift.

    “However, at busier times such as lunchtime staff were not always able to spend time with people and they were task driven.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What dementia-friendly changes have been made to the environment since this inspection?
  2. 02How do you provide activities that are suitable and stimulating for each person living with dementia?
  3. 03Have all care plans been updated with people's life histories, likes and dislikes, and how often are they reviewed?
  4. 04How do you staff the home at busy times, especially during lunch?
  5. 05How do you check that the improvements identified after the previous inspection are being maintained?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions and the overall quality of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Sheerwater House

6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. November 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Sheerwater House →

  2. January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Responsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Sheerwater House →

  3. June 2019Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. November 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. March 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. August 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. August 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. October 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  16. July 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  17. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey

These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.

Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
Emma P., about Aman A.
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Clare M., about Zion S.
See live-in carers near SurreyProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.