ResCare

Date of Assessment: 14 September 2026, which included an out of hours site visit. ResCare is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation to people with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of this assessment there was one person using the service.

This was a focussed assessment carried out to ensure compliance with previous enforcement action taken against the service for breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and the governance and oversight of the service. We assessed the key questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well led. We found the provider had made sufficient improvements and was no longer in breach of regulation.

During this assessment, we spoke with a person, a relative and the registered manager, and reviewed feedback from staff. We looked at people’s care records, observed their daily lives and interactions. We checked the premises, looked at staff records and records relating to the management of the service. The person’s needs were regularly assessed and reviewed, with person-centred support plans and risk assessments in place. Medicines were stored securely and administered by trained and competent staff. Staff worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals, making timely referrals and incorporating specialist guidance into support plans to ensure people received safe and effective care.

The service worked in line with the principles of right support, right care and right culture. People had choice and control, with care focused on independence and quality of life. Staff supported the person to access local facilities and take part in activities of their choice within the community.

Staff were recruited safely, received appropriate training and regular performance feedback. Staffing arrangements were planned to meet people's needs and support them to pursue their interests, hobbies and aspirations. Staff enjoyed their work, were treated fairly and had opportunities to develop.

The registered manager demonstrated a strong commitment to protect people from abuse and worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported to make choices and decisions about their lives. Effective systems were in place to monitor incidents and accidents, identify learning and action taken to improve practice and keep people safe.

The provider had made improvements to the premises, fire and infection prevention and control practices. People lived in a clean, safe and well-maintained environment, with personalised bedrooms that reflected their individual preferences and helped create a homely atmosphere.

Leaders promoted a positive culture of learning and continuous improvement. Strengthened oversight, risk management and quality assurance systems had been sustained, and the views of people, relatives and staff were used to shape and improve the service.

People were exposed to avoidable risks due to ineffective oversight systems and processes. Risks were assessed and managed when people first began using the service. However, people’s needs and risks were not consistently reviewed, either regularly or before each respite stay, despite care plans containing clear, good quality guidance for staff. The provider was responsive and made improvements.

We found improvements were needed in relation to medicines management and staff recruitment procedures and training. Despite this staff worked well together and demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities to provide safe care while promoting people’s rights, wellbeing, independence and dignity.

We found restrictive practices were used without appropriate professional oversight or lawful best interest decision-making processes being completed. The provider was responsive and some took action including removing unnecessary restrictions and they confirmed an application for legal authorisation had been requested.

Systems were in place to record and report accidents and incidents, and staff understood their responsibilities in this area. However, these were not always analysed to identify trends or patterns to reduce future risks.

People lived in a clean and tidy environment, and bedrooms were personalised. However, environmental risks were found including lack of fire safety equipment, and the absence of systems to ensure compliance with fire safety, water safety and wider health and safety requirements. Records did not provide sufficient assurance there was regular cleaning to prevent the risk and spread of infection.

Staff supported people to make day to day decisions and respected their wishes. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to live fulfilling lives and supported them to social and pursue their hobbies and interests. Staff supported people to make healthier food choices to promote their health and wellbeing. Staff were kind and attentive.

Safeguarding processes were in place, and staff were able to identify signs of abuse and understood how to report concerns. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of the people they supported, including their individual communication needs, and responded to them appropriately.

Staff told us they enjoyed their work, had opportunities to develop and felt respected and were treated fairly by the provider. Staff were confident to raise concerns and speak up without fear. There was a complaints procedure in place. The service had not received any complaints

The governance systems and processes were not effective in identifying areas for improvement. Further action was required to strengthen and embed governance arrangements to drive improvement. Opportunities to engage with external partners and the wider community remained limited.