Updated 18 August 2026
The inspection was carried out between 19 August and 21 September 2026.
We completed this assessment to follow up on concerns received about the service and because of the age of the rating of the service.
Cartref House is a care home providing accommodation and or personal care for up to 6 people. This is a specialist service for autistic people and people with a learning disability. It provides support for people who may display distressed behaviours. At the time of the inspection 5 people were living at the home.
‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ (RSRCRC) is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. We assessed the service against RSRCRC 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.
People told us they felt supported by staff. We observed kind and caring interactions. Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that reflected their individual needs, preferences, communication styles and goals. People were encouraged to make choices, develop independence and participate in education, employment-related opportunities, community activities and daily living tasks.
Professionals spoke positively about the service’s collaborative approach and described staff as person-centred, responsive and committed to helping people build skills and achieve positive outcomes. The service worked with healthcare professionals and partner organisations to support people’s health, wellbeing and future aspirations.
Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and there were systems in place to monitor incidents, risks and outcomes. The environment was generally safe and well maintained, and people were supported to access healthcare services and remain connected with their communities. However, we identified areas where safety and governance arrangements were not consistently effective. Risk management records were sometimes incomplete or inconsistent and we found a person had not always received ‘as required’ medicine to manage their health need. Learning from incidents, audits and reviews were not always robustly recorded or evaluated for effectiveness. Leaders were aware of areas for improvement in their governance and oversight prior to our inspection and had introduced new audit and oversight systems. They responded positively to feedback during the assessment.
Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and committed to improving outcomes for people. Staff told us they felt supported and able to raise concerns.