During an assessment under our new approach
We carried out this assessment on 3 August 2026 and 6 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.
Up until June 2026, people could 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 generally 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. However, people’s capacity to make some decisions had not always been assessed.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disabilityrespect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
Overall, staff supported people in line with this guidance. For example, people were supported by staff who knew them well. People were supported to access the community regularly. People’s feedback was listened to and used to improve the service.
Staff had been recruited safely and had received a range of training to meet people’s needs. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. The environment was well maintained and free from any hazards. People received their medicines as prescribed however some medicine related guidance lacked information. People were not always supported to be independent with their medicines.
People’s needs were assessed thoroughly prior to them moving to the service. People’s outcomes were monitored so they could be consistently improved. People were supported by kind, caring and compassionate staff.
People received person centred care. For example, the activities they took part in were tailored to their interests, and people’s rooms were personalised with pictures. People’s views were sought in relation to their care, and we saw actions the provider had taken following feedback received. People were treated fairly and received care and support that met their individual needs.
Staff spoke positively about working for the service. Comments included, “It’s very great, I love working here” and “Management are very considerate.”
There was an open, positive culture at the service. Managers had clear oversight of the service and governance systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. We received positive feedback from professionals working with the service, who described their experience of the service as “consistently positive”, “collaborative” and “person-centred”.
However, we found people’s choice and independence was not always fully promoted. For example, there was only one meal available on the menu each day for lunch, although people were able to choose something else if this was available. People were not involved in cooking and preparing their own meals, and food was bought to people from the main kitchen. This included teatime meals such as sandwiches. One person commented they would like to do this themselves. We raised this with the manager, who acknowledged the concern and agreed to take action. We also identified the dining room door was locked during the night which prevented people accessing this area of their home during the night. The manager agreed this was an unnecessary restriction and removed this during the site visit.