- Care home
Mr & Mrs A H Akbarally
Assessment report published 21 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 6 July and 10 July 2026.
Before our assessment, we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR), which is an annual return that adult social care providers submit to CQC. The PIR includes information about how the service is performing, changes that have been made, and how the provider ensures the service is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. We found the service remained good and that people received safe and effective care which was responsive to their individual needs.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA 2005 and that DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice and control over their lives.
Staff were available when people needed them, including at night. Staffing levels were adjusted if people’s needs changed. For example, when one person experienced a decline in their mobility, a risk assessment identified that 2 staff were required to provide care safely while maintaining the person’s dignity and comfort.
The PIR outlined how the provider ensured staffing levels were appropriate, stating, ‘Our staffing levels are carefully planned to meet [people’s] individual and changing needs, with full consideration of their age, disability, language, cultural preferences, and personal care requirements.’
Staff were recruited safely and were provided with the induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles. Staff completed mandatory training and regular refresher courses in addition to training relevant to people’s individual needs.
Staff kept people safe while promoting their independence. People were protected from abuse, neglect and avoidable harm because staff understood safeguarding procedures, responded appropriately to concerns and worked effectively with partner agencies.
People lived in a safe, clean environment. The provider carried out regular health and safety checks to ensure the environment and equipment were safe and appropriately maintained. People’s medicines were managed safely and reviewed regularly.
Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing effectively and took action when necessary to ensure the best outcomes for people. Staff kept people’s needs under review, including their health, emotional, and communication needs.
The registered manager led by example in their approach to supporting people, demonstrating a compassionate and person-centred approach to care. The registered manager was committed to ensuring people were at the heart of decision-making and were supported to achieve the best possible quality of life.
The provider’s governance systems helped ensure people received safe, high-quality care that reflected their needs and preferences. People who lived at the home and their families were encouraged to give feedback about the care and support provided, which the provider used to improve the service. The provider had established effective working relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care and implemented any guidance they recommended.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with the people who lived at the home and observed the engagement they had with staff to understand their experiences of care and support. We talked with 2 relatives by phone to hear their feedback about their family member’s care.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We found the service was meeting this guidance, which meant people were supported in a way which maximised their dignity, choice and access to their local community.
People enjoyed living at the home and had developed lasting positive relationships with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I am very happy here; it is nice and quiet and peaceful”, and “The staff are lovely.” Relatives confirmed their family members were happy living at the home and said they had developed a strong sense of belonging. One relative told us, “[Family member] is happy there; she always says, ‘That is my home.’”
Staff treated people with kindness and respect and maintained their dignity when providing their care. Staff engaged with people in a warm and friendly manner, while maintaining a professional approach. People were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and families. Relatives told us they were made welcome when they visited the home. One relative said, “We can visit whenever we like. My son and my daughter go and see [family member]; they just turn up and they are always made welcome.”
Staff supported people to make meaningful choices about how they spent their time and respected their decisions about their care and support. People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to be active in their local community. People enjoyed an annual holiday and had access to a mobility vehicle to maximise their ability to access the community and activities they enjoyed.
Staff understood people's individual communication needs. One person's first language was not English, and both the registered manager and staff spoke the same language, which ensured the person could express their views, preferences and wishes. The registered manager accompanied the person to appointments and acted as an interpreter when engaging with healthcare and other professionals. This helped ensure the person’s views were represented and they had equitable access to care and treatment.
People's cultural and religious needs were understood and respected. Staff supported people to maintain practices, celebrations, and traditions that were important to them. For example, one person was supported to celebrate Diwali, Raksha Bandhan, and other cultural festivals, while another person attended regular church services. One person enjoyed listening to Hindi music and watching Hindi films. To support this, the service subscribed to streaming services that provided access to Hindi-language content.
People had choice and control over what they ate and told us they enjoyed the food at the home. Mealtimes were a valued part of daily life within the home, providing opportunities for people to enjoy shared experiences. Staff encouraged people to maintain a healthy, balanced diet while respecting their individual preferences and wishes.
People were supported to maintain their independence wherever possible and staff encouraged people to take an active role in their daily lives. For example, one person was supported to maintain their independent mobility for as long as possible, helping them remain active and engaged in their community. Another person was supported to prepare their own packed lunches when going out, promoting independence in everyday tasks.