Birnbeck House - Care Home Learning Disabilities

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of assessment 23 July to 1 August 2025. Birnbeck House – Care Home Learning Disabilities is a residential care home providing care to people with a learning disability and autistic people which can accommodate up to 13 people. At the time of our inspection, 10 people were living at the home.

This was a responsive assessment to review 6 breaches of regulation identified in our previous assessment in June 2024. We assessed 4 quality statements in safe, 1 in responsive and 1 in well led. At our last assessment we rated this service as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement.

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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, person centred care, dignity and respect, safeguarding, staffing and governance. Improvements were found at this assessment in relation to safeguarding and dignity and respect.

Improvements were not found at this assessment in relation to safe care and treatment, person centred care, staffing and governance. The provider remained in breach of these legal regulations. People were at increased risk as the provider had not assessed or effectively managed all risks to people. People were supported with their health care needs but were not always supported to take part in activities they enjoyed or make choices about how they spent their time. Some staff were not trained in supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability at a level appropriate to their role. The service did not have governance systems effective in providing oversight of the daily care and support being delivered to people and identifying areas for improvement.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

People's experience of this service

The service was not always able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture for people at the service.

We observed the interactions and communication between people and staff throughout our site visit. We spoke to people’s relatives, and we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. While people’s relatives expressed general satisfaction with their care and people were observed to be comfortable in the presence of staff, our assessment found elements of care did not meet the expected standards.

People had clear and detailed plans of care and relevant risk assessments. However, we did not always observe people received personalised care which should be responsive to their individual needs. For example, people spent long periods of time with limited interaction and without anything meaningful to do. The service planned a group afternoon activity each day. However, these activities were not observed to always take place. The service had limited opportunities for individual activities for people, including when people were in receipt of 1 to 1 support. People were not always observed to be provided with a choice of drinks, except at lunch time.

Staff interaction with people varied. Some staff spoke with the person regularly and explained the support they were providing and asked for their consent. However, we observed staff conducting other care tasks such as moving and handling and supporting people to eat and drink being provided with little or no verbal interaction. People were at increased risk of harm because the provider had not identified and assessed all risks to people, or staff were not always following people’s risk assessments.

Relatives told us staff treated people with dignity and respect and staff were kind and caring and knew people well.