During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Pooley View is a care home. The service is based over 2 floors and has communal lounge, kitchen and bathroom facilities. The home has a private garden and is based in a residential community. There were 4 people using the service at the time of the assessment.
Who the service is for
This is a specialist service for people with a physical disability, learning disability and autistic people. We have 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.
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 21 August 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 were supported by trained staff who had the skills and knowledge to deliver safe care. Staff felt their training was good, 1 staff member told us, “I was a bit nervous at first, with giving insulin injections, but the training is good and it is ongoing. We have lots of support whenever needed.”
Staff had been recruited safely and there were sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs. The registered manager was not based at the home but had daily contact and was available to support staff whenever needed, or an on-call management team were available. Rota planning meant it was usual for there to be a single staff member on shift. However, people felt this met most of their needs and told us this did not restrict them going out in the community, to take part in their chosen activities. However, advanced planning was needed. One person said, “It might be nice to have a little more staffing sometimes.”
People were supported with their medicines and records showed these were given as prescribed. Medicines were stored securely. Staff’s competencies were assessed in the safe handling of medicines. We observed a staff member supporting a person with monitoring their blood glucose levels before they went out in the community to ensure this was in the person’s normal range.
Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. One staff member told us, “If I had any concerns I would report to the manager or CQC.” Risk management plans had been completed, and staff knew how to keep people safe from identified risks of avoidable harm. For example, 1 staff member told us the safety measures in place for supporting 1 person with epilepsy to have a bath safely. Relatives told us they felt their loved one was well cared for. One relative told us, “The manager is on the ball.”
People’s needs were assessed before moving into the home and any changes in needs were acted on. The management team were committed to supporting people with smooth transitions between services and detailed hospital passports were in place. A hospital passport is a document for individuals with autism or learning disabilities and provides information to staff about specific needs. For example, 1 person had high levels of anxiety with healthcare appointments and in-patient hospital stays; their risk management detailed they would have daily visits from staff, and seeing a familiar face helped this person manage their anxiety more effectively.
Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals to ensure people received the care they needed. For example, a staff member told us, “[Name]’s blood glucose was very unstable, and we all worked closely with the diabetic nurse to improve thingsand now they are really pleased and only need monthly information to check it remains stable.”
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. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Staff understood how to protect people’s privacy and dignity; knocking on bedroom doors before entering.
People received person-centred care from staff who were committed to the provider’s vision of delivering a safe and quality service. Information was available to people in accessible formats. People’s individual interests were recorded, and staff knew what people liked to do and their preferences.
Staff felt the management team were supportive and listened to them. A range of support systems were in place for staff to access if they wished to, for example, nationally recognised tools on supporting staff with their mental health.
The registered manager and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) undertook regular audits, oversight visits and reviews of quality and safety information. These systems enabled leaders to monitor performance, identify any areas for improvement and maintain good quality care.