Updated 31 December 2025
We visited the service on the 2 and 3 March 2026.
Trafalgar Street is a residential care home that supports people with a learning disability or autistic people. At the time of our inspection people 3 were using the service. Our assessment was prompted due to the age of rating. Since the assessment the provider’s legal entity changed. We found that the provider was in breach of the regulations relating to medicines, risk management and safety and good governance.
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 found the provider had met some of these expectations but needed to improve the analysis of accidents and incidents, how they monitored risk, and management of medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed by trained and competent staff. However, medicines were not safely stored and there were shortfalls in medicines records.
Staff knew people exceptionally well. Care plans were detailed and took account of people’s needs, however, further information was needed to ensure clear guidance was available to staff on how to support people when they were distressed. We identified minor shortfalls in recruitment but generally staff were safely recruited.
Staff felt supported to give feedback about how to drive improvements and felt action would be taken. The service was clean and homely. People were supported by staff who had received training but training for the majority of staff had expired or needed refreshing. Staff had not received up to date training to ensure they could safely support people when they were distressed, however, most staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. People told us they were engaged in meaningful activities, and their goals and aspirations were recorded and monitored to ensure they were experiencing a good quality of life.
People’s health needs were met, and appropriate professionals were involved when required. Mental capacity was considered for some decisions but not consistently reviewed and capacity for other decisions had been overlooked and capacity assessments had not been conducted. Families were involved in people’s care, and individuals were encouraged and supported to maintain meaningful relationships. The provider had not gathered feedback to ensure holistic views about the service had been considered to drive improvements.
The service had a new registered manager who was supported by the provider, and they had a clear understanding of the service and the shortfalls we highlighted at the inspection. They were open, responsive, and demonstrated a commitment to continually improve governance and monitoring and to embed the improvements into practice. Leaders had a shared vision and were visible and had plans to upskill staff to ensure the service worked harmoniously to support people the best they could.