Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Mellandene

Cassandra House

19 Dunswell Road, Cottingham, HU16 4JA

Requires improvementpublished 16 July 2025, 13 months ago

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

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines, risk records and quality checks were not always reliable.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 January 2024. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records, and observed care and infection control.

The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. Medicines were mostly managed safely, but some records and arrangements were incomplete. Risk assessments, care plans and records of accidents and incidents were not always up to date or detailed enough.

Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, staffing levels met assessed needs, and people were supported to access healthcare. The home had a positive culture, but its audits and systems did not always identify problems or ensure improvements were completed.

The previous rating was Good, published on 17 October 2017. The CQC found a breach of Regulation 17 on good governance and will ask for an action plan before monitoring progress.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind, respectful care

    Inspectors saw compassionate interactions. People and relatives said staff treated people with dignity and respect.

    We observed kind and caring interactions between people and staff during the inspection.from the report
  • People felt safe

    People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and safeguarding arrangements were in place.

    People told us they felt safe at the service.from the report
  • Suitable staffing

    Recruitment checks had been completed, and inspectors found staffing levels matched people's assessed needs.

    Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people living at the service.from the report
  • Positive culture

    The home was described as welcoming and supportive. Staff understood the home's values and people were involved in their care.

    The home was welcoming, and the atmosphere was warm and supportive.from the report
  • Healthcare links

    The home worked with health and social care professionals, including GPs and therapists, to support people's health and wellbeing.

    The provider worked closely with several community health and social care professionals to ensure people maintained their health and wellbeing.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines records

    serious

    Records about medicine preferences, prescribed patches, refrigerated medicines and thickeners were incomplete. Documentation for one person's covert medicines was not in place.

    Medicine practices were not always in line with best practice guidelines.from the report
  • Risk and care records

    needs fixing

    Risk assessments and care plans did not always reflect people's current needs or give enough detail about the care provided.

    Care plans were not always fully complete or lacked relevant details about people's care needs.from the report
  • Learning from incidents

    needs fixing

    The home recorded incidents and accidents, but did not consistently analyse them for patterns, trends or lessons that could prevent them happening again.

    There was minimal evidence to support the monitoring and analysing of accidents, incidents or falls.from the report
  • Quality checks

    serious

    Audits did not always identify problems found by inspectors, and improvement actions were not always followed up and signed off.

    Where improvements to the service had been identified through quality auditing, action was not always taken in a timely way.from the report
  • Some premises areas

    minor

    Some parts of the home needed refurbishment to allow more effective cleaning.

    Some areas of the care home required refurbishment to enable more effective cleaning.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to medicine records, including records for prescribed patches, refrigerated medicines, thickeners and covert medicines?
  2. 02How are you making sure risk assessments and care plans are updated when people's needs change?
  3. 03How are accidents, incidents, falls and safeguarding concerns now analysed for patterns and lessons?
  4. 04How will you make sure audits identify problems and that improvement actions are completed and signed off?
  5. 05Which areas of the home need refurbishment to support effective cleaning, and what is the timetable for this work?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not rated in this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 2024 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 Cassandra House

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. February 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Cassandra House

  2. October 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. October 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. December 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Nearby

Other care homes near Cottingham

Benjamin Lodge

Hull, HU16 · 0.3 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

Magnolia House

Cottingham, HU16 · 1.3 km
Not yet rated
ResidentialDementia
Not yet ratedcare home

Magnolia House

Cottingham, HU16 · 1.3 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained