During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Pooley Heights is a care home offering short ‘respite’ stays of varying lengths to meet individual needs. The care home is a bungalow which has 6 bedrooms, most with ensuite facilities, a 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
Pooley Heights 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. We were assured the service met the principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ and people received safe, person-centred and outcomes focused care and support.
Key Findings
We carried out this assessment on 11 September 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.
The service had a strong focus on meeting people’s individual needs in a personalised way in line with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance.
People were supported by staff trained in safeguarding people from abuse and staff understood the importance of speaking up if they had any concerns. One staff member told us, “I would report any concerns about abuse immediately to the manager.” Peoples’ identified risks were assessed and guidance to mitigate risks was in place for staff to refer to within people’s individual plans of care.
Environmental risks had been assessed. Fire safety drills took place, and staff knew what action to take in an emergency situation. The bungalow had 1 bedroom specifically designed to meet the needs of people who used a wheelchair. Lower-level sink and mirrors within a ‘wet-room’ ensuite promoted independence. This bedroom had patio doors providing a safe exit of the home for a person using a wheelchair. If a person was in bed, staff could wheel their bed outside and this was reflected in personal emergency evacuation plans.
Staff had been recruited in a safe way and sufficient numbers of staff were employed. The registered manager told us, “As a respite service, we have different numbers of people staying at different times and each have varying needs of support. We adjust staffing numbers on shift to meet the needs of people here.”
Staff felt supported by the registered manager and wider management team. One staff member told us, “I am new working here and the manager has been supportive. I have not been pressured into doing anything. I was anxious doing my first sleep-in night shift, but I knew how to contact the on-call manager if needed and it all went okay.” Staff told us they always had support during lone-working sleep-in shifts. One staff member told us, “Even if our own manager is not the one on call, we can still phone them and they will come in if needed. That’s happened in the past.”
Staff were trained to give them the skills and knowledge they needed for their role. One staff member told us, “The training is good, we do online sessions and some face-to-face sessions.” Overall, staff followed their training and followed the provider’s policies and procedures. However, the provider needed to make some improvement, in their checks on staff, to ensure staff consistently followed what they had been taught in training and what policies and procedures directed them to do. For example, some staff did not always refer to a person’s medication administration record at the point of administering medicines to a person. This increased the risk of error. During our visit, immediate action was taken by the registered manager to remind staff of the importance of this.
We reviewed 2 people’s medication administration records (MAR) during our visit, and these had been completed by staff to show people had been supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Where a person had a medicine prescribed for a health condition, a protocol was in place providing guidance to staff on when to administer the medicine.
The service had a learning culture and during our visit, any feedback was welcomed and acted on. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) supported a number of registered managers across Polesworth Group Homes and learning was shared across the homes. The registered manager of Pooley Heights told us they felt supported and had opportunities for reflecting, sharing their learning and learning from others.
People’s needs were assessed prior to them first using the service. As an on-going re-assessment of needs, prior to each stay at the service, a pre-admission ‘reception’ form was completed by relatives. Relatives spoken with told us they always received this ahead of the planned respite stay. One relative told us, “Staff send the form with [Name] when they come home, so we have it ready for the next stay.” Staff told us if they had any concerns about a person, or the form was not received, they immediately phoned relatives and informed the registered manager. Should a person’s needs have changed, their plan of care was updated so staff had the information they needed to refer to.
Staff used appropriate communication methods with people. Additional training was planned for October 2026 for staff to support people who used Makaton signs to reinforce the spoken word. Makaton is a basic signing system for people with learning disabilities or autism.
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. Some people using the service had a DoLS in place and this was to ensure their safety and wellbeing.
Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent. One staff member told us, “We don’t force people to do anything. We say, ‘would you like me to help you have a shower’ or ‘would you like to do this today’, so we explain to people and give them choices.”
During our visit, we spent time with people in the communal lounge and dining area and observed interactions between them and staff. Staff showed a caring approach, treating people with kindness and compassion and valuing their opinions.
Staff gave us examples of how they promoted independence, choice and control. One staff member told us, “Today, we have asked people what they would like to do, 2 people love going to feed the ducks so that is what we are doing this afternoon.” Another 2 people had wanted to watch a DVD together in the lounge. Staff understood the importance of providing person-centred care, listening to people and involving them in their care and support and achieving the outcomes people desired.
Staff gave us examples of outcomes people had achieved during their stay at the service. This included 1 person making a personal achievement leading them to be able to enjoy shared mealtimes.
The registered manager shared examples of when they had advocated for people and supported them to access healthcare services during their short stay at the service. For example, where people had needed to access GP services this was supported by staff.
Overall, the provider had good governance systems and processes in place, and these checks were undertaken by the registered manager and CEO on their regular visits to the home. These were used to identify where improvements were needed so actions could be taken. For example, the registered manager had requested an additional kitchen cupboard be lockable as it was used to store hazardous chemicals. This was completed during our visit.
However, some improvements were needed in the day-to-day oversight of staff to ensure the provider’s expected standards were consistently met by all staff. For example, with staff reporting any issues that needed to be escalated to the registered manager.
Where a recent incident had occurred, the registered manager demonstrated they had commenced an investigation. However, we did not find they had acted on the identified risk or mitigated this. During our visit, we discussed this with the registered manager, the CEO and an assistant manager and the processes in handling the incident were reflected on. Following our visit, a robust risk management plan was shared with us.
The registered manager carried out competency assessments on staff to check their skills. These included staff’s moving and handling skills. Whilst there had been no incidents related to practices, the registered manager needed to have a higher level of knowledge than staff so effective competency checks could be completed. The registered manager assured us they would complete a ‘train the trainer’ course.
The provider had a shared vision and wanted to continuously improve the service. They were pro-active in looking at ways to offer a safe and good service and were receptive to learning and to feedback from others.