Enabling Others Limited

Date of assessment 8-14 April 2026. This assessment was announced.

Enabling Others Limited is a supported living service which also provides homecare to adults with learning disabilities, mental health and autistic people. For this report, we only assessed the supported living provision for this service. At the time of the assessment there were 7 people using the service. Not everyone who used the service received the regulated activity personal care. CQC only assesses where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations relating to person-centred care, consent, safe care and treatment, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed. We undertook this assessment to assess if the provider had made sufficient improvements against the warning notice we served in response to these breaches of regulations. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

This service has been in Special Measures since 17 September 2025. The provider demonstrated improvements that have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

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 people received care in accordance with this guidance and care workers and staff.

People were kept safe by staff that had knowledge and understanding of their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the signs to recognise abuse and the procedure to report any concerns internally of externally. People received their medicines as prescribed, and the management of medicines was safe. The provider had a learning culture where staff understood, and managed risks and people were kept safe. Risks were assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure measures remained effective and appropriate. People were supported to take positive risks where this enhanced their quality of life. Staff understood people’s emotional communication and responded effectively to signs of distress, anxiety and frustration. Leaders and staff followed the least restrictive options to keep people safe and ensured lessons were learnt and shared through de-brief processes. People were supported to understand and maintain their tenancies, and staff supported them to ensure environments were safe, suitable and well maintained. Staff were deployed to meet people’s needs and keep them safe, and were supported through effective induction, supervision, appraisal and training to provide effective support to people.
People had choices about how they wanted their day-to-day care delivered and staff respected their decisions. People’s care and support reflected their choices, preferences, personalities, needs and individuality. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy and were supported to plan and shop for their meals where appropriate. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff ensured people had choice and control and consented to their care. They followed processes to ensure those important to people, and those involved in their care, took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People were supported to identify and achieve meaningful goals and aspirations, including hobbies and interests, and enabled to be as independent as possible. Staff encouraged and supported people to be a part of their local communities. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. The provider had reviewed their overall governance arrangements and made significant improvements to ensure robust and effective systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. They demonstrated they had learnt lessons and were committed to maintaining high standards of care and continuing to develop the service. Staff supported the provider’s values of people being in control and at the centre of their care. They were committed to enabling people to achieve the best possible outcomes from their care and support.

Date of assessment 8-14 April 2026. This assessment was announced.

Enabling Others Limited is a homecare service which also provides supported living to adults with learning disabilities, mental health and autistic people. For this report, we only assessed the homecare provision for this service. At the time of the assessment there was 1 person using the service. The service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture.’

Risks were being assessed, and measures were in place to reduce the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Medicines were administered safely and in line with prescriptions and these were regularly reviewed. Sufficient staff were deployed to meet the person’s needs and keep them safe. Consistent staff were allocated to care visits which meant they were able to provide flexible, individual care using a person-centred approach. Staff supported the person to staff well and healthy and respected their right to make decisions and choices. The provider and registered manager had developed systems to maintain good oversight of the service. They used lessons learnt to develop and improve the service; any issues were quickly responded to and resolved. Staff supported the provider’s values of people being in control and at the centre of their care. They were committed to enabling people to achieve the best possible outcomes from their care and support.

Date of assessment: 26 September to 10 October 2025. Enabling Others Limited is a supported living provider, supporting people who live in their private residence, under the age of 65, and who are living with mental health conditions or learning disabilities. At the time of this assessment the service was supporting 17 people. However, only 8 of the people were being supported with the regulated activity of personal care. CQC only look at people’s records if they are in receipt of the regulated activity.

An assessment has been undertaken of a service specialising in supporting autistic people or people with a learning disability. 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 carried out this assessment to follow up on concerns we received about the support provided for people. At this assessment, we found evidence to substantiate these concerns. As such, we found the provider to be in breach of legal regulations relating to person-centred care, consent, safe care and treatment, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we user our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

People were not always kept safe. Medicines were not always managed safely, and the provider did not establish effective safeguarding systems to ensure people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. The providers systems and processes did not always establish and maintain safe systems of care. Lessons were not learnt to continually identify and embed best practice. Risks related to people’s care were not always managed effectively, and the provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. The provider did not make sure people were supported by well trained, competent and experienced staff and recruitment checks were not thorough.

Care was not always effective. Assessment processes were not always used effectively to ensure that risk related to people’s care needs was properly understood. Guidance on how to meet people’s needs was not always detailed or consistent. People were mostly supported to achieve positive outcomes with their support, but care was not always effectively monitored to inform and develop care practices. The provider did not work within the key principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The service was not always caring. The provider did not always promote people’s independence. People’s care records did not always provide staff with consistent guidance on how to meet people’s immediate needs safely. The provider and staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Care was not always responsive. People’s care records were not always updated when their needs changed. The provider could not be assured appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information was always supplied in formats that were tailored and appropriate to individual needs. Relatives were not always satisfied that appropriate action was taken when concerns were raised. Despite these concerns, the provider made sure that people could access the care support when they needed it, and some people were supported by staff to achieve good outcomes.

Governance was not always effective. Leaders at the service did not always act with honesty and integrity, and in some instances the provider had made clinical care decisions without consulting professionals with the relevant clinical experience. Most staff felt there was good diversity and respect of cultures and religious beliefs; however, not all staff felt well supported by leaders. Quality assurance and oversight processes were not always effective at identifying shortfalls and ensuring service improvement. Opportunities for learning, creativity and service improvement were missed at multiple instances.