You are here

Lynwood Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 March 2020

About the service

Lynwood is a ‘supported living’ service and is registered to provide the regulated activity of personal care to people living in their own home. At the time of the inspection, eight people with learning and physical disabilities who were all living in the same property, were being provided with personal care.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service

The service did not have clear guidelines for people’s finances. We had concerns about people’s access to their own money and how they could spend it. The provider made improvements to their processes following our inspection. Whilst this was a supported living service and Care Quality Commission do not inspect the premises, we found concerns around fire safety. We have made a recommendation to follow best practice guidance on fire risk management. We found gaps in people’s employment history. The provider told us they were aware of the gaps but had not recorded them.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible; but the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. There were no best interests decisions being recorded. Some people had no consent to care agreements in place at the time of the inspection though people told us and observations confirmed people’s consent was sought when staff provided care. We have made a recommendation about following best practice with regards to recording people’s consent.

The service did not always keep up to date records. We saw annual and monthly reviews which were overdue.

Staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse and who to report it to. There were sufficient staff working at the service to meet people’s needs. Risks to people were monitored and managed. People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff understood the importance of infection control. Incidents and accidents were recorded, and lessons learned when they occurred.

People’s needs were assessed before receiving a service to ensure the provider could meet their needs. Staff received inductions and training about how to do their jobs and told us they were supported in their roles by the registered manager. People were supported to eat and drink. Staff worked with other agencies to ensure people received effective timely care.

People and relatives told us staff were caring. The service supported equal rights. People and relatives could express their views and be involved in decisions about their care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. Staff understood privacy and the need for confidentiality.

People’s needs and preferences were recorded in care plans which focused on how best to support them. The service worked to ensure people’s communication needs were met. People were supported to take part in activities both individually and as a group. People were supported to be able to complain, though the service had received no complaints since our last inspection.

People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. Staff understood their roles. People, relatives and staff engaged with the service through regular meetings and surveys. Staff worked in partnership with other agencies to benefit people using the service. There were quality assurance measures in place.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at


Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 March 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below


Requires improvement

Updated 12 March 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 12 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 12 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 March 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.