- Care home
Royal Mencap Society - 145 Kingsley Road
Assessment report published 2 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Royal Mencap Society - 145 Kingsley Road is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 8 people. There were 8 people using the service at the time of the assessment.
This is a specialist service for people with a 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 carried out this assessment on 10 and 11 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.
People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people were involved in the process. There were effective systems to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were administered safely. Systems and processes were not always effective to ensure some environmental safety concerns were identified and addressed, although the registered manager took action to resolve these.
People had their needs assessed and the service worked well with other professionals to ensure people’s changing needs were well supported. People's nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff knew of people’s specific dietary needs in line with their care plans. People who use the service consistently experienced positive outcomes. People’s views and wishes were central to the support they received. Residents’ meetings reflected people’s wishes, views and opinions on subjects, and these were respected and actioned. People and their relatives told us people could make choices around their lives.
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 staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Staff and people had positive relationships and interactions. Staff spoke to people with kindness, compassion and dignity. They knew people well and could talk about people’s needs, wishes, likes, dislikes and personal histories spontaneously.
Activities were engaging and meaningful for people both on and off site. They were varied, personalised and people talked positively about what they had done and were planning to do.
Staff responded in the moment to people's wishes and needs, which were at the forefront of staff's attention. Staff communicated well with people and understood their individual communication styles. People were happy and comfortable in staff's presence. People knew how to feedback or raise concerns, and people had the opportunity to speak to senior managers. Staff had the knowledge and skills to identify and address discrimination and inequality.
Staff were positive and told us they felt well supported by the manager and deputy manager who they said were approachable and motivating. There were not always clearly defined roles regarding some responsibilities about the safety and maintenance of the service. A relationship with 1 stakeholder was not always robust and effective to ensure some actions about the physical aspects of the service were always completed in a timely manner. These have now been addressed. Systems and processes were in place to review quality within the service. The registered manager was keen to engage and learn from the inspection. Where issues were identified, they responded swiftly and willingly, and took action to change and improve things. They saw these as an opportunity to learn and improve.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about their home and the staff who supported them. They told us they “liked living here”, “staff support me very well”, “they make us laugh”, “I like going out and about” and “I wouldn’t change anything”.
People, their relatives and staff spoke highly of the management team, who, they told us, were “approachable”, they “get on well with” and were “absolutely fabulous”. They told us they could go to them at any time about anything.
People told us they felt safe living at the service and were supported with a positive approach to risk taking. For example, people had structured plans to increase their independence when accessing the community.
People consistently experienced positive outcomes. They were keen to demonstrate the opportunities they had to learn new skills and develop existing skills. We observed people joining in household tasks and 1 person told us how they did their own cleaning and said, “It’s our house, we look after it and take pride in it”. Staff ensured people also maintained skills where they were at risk of these declining, such as their mobility. Staff provided people with the information they needed to make informed decisions about activities, and this supported them to gain confidence to take part in new activities. People were supported and encouraged to participate in their hobbies, and 1 person was supported to take part in a large national event which they were very proud to show us.
People’s quality of life was improved by living at the service. They told us they were friends with the other people who lived there, and we observed people’s positive relationships with each other. People instigated and planned activities both onsite and off, which they invited others to join in with.
We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect and speaking discreetly with people to protect their dignity and privacy. People’s views and wishes were central to the support they received. Staff asked people for their consent using appropriate communication methods before they supported people for example, preparing for personal care and medicines administration.
Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used observation to assess whether they received good care. This demonstrated person-centred support in practice, with staff consistently interacting positively with people and using their preferred methods of communication to ensure they were fully involved.
The provider held special events which had themes chosen by people which matched their favourite interests. For example, an Elvis impersonator visited, and people from another service were also invited to enjoy the experience. This showed people enjoyed meaningful social lives, with support extending beyond the service itself.
People had many opportunities to provide feedback and be part of the service. Formal key worker sessions and residents’ meetings took place and there was also an open-door approach by the manager. We observed people speaking with staff and management at any point during the day, meaning people did not have to wait to raise anything.