Updated 2 September 2026
The service is a care home. There were 3 people using the service at the time of the assessment. This is a specialist service for people with a learning disability and or autistic people.
We carried out this assessment on 11 September 2026 and 16 September 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.
We have assessed the service against The Care Quality Commission’s ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance, which was developed 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 service was meeting these aims.
The service provided exceptionally personalised care, and people were treated as genuine partners in developing and agreeing their own support plans, so it was right for them. People had lived together at the location for many years and had good relationships with each other and with staff. The environment was clean, homely, well decorated and showed people they were valued. For example, we saw staff were asked to change their outdoor shoes when entering the home. A professional who worked with the service told us, “The atmosphere within the setting feels warm, welcoming, and homely, creating an environment that feels more like a family home than a traditional residential care setting.” People’s sensory and communication needs and preferences were well understood and consistently facilitated. A relative said, “I am happy for all the care, [staff] are very good to [person] and look after [them].”
Risks were assessed in key areas to keep people safe from the risk of harm, whilst also empowering them to do things important to them. The service learnt from any accidents or incidents to reduce the risk of reoccurrence and tracked this over time to ensure any actions were effective. A relative told us, “Any risks are properly considered”, and “There have been no reports of accidents and staff seem to be vigilant.” Medicines were given safely and as prescribed, with a clear vision to reduce any unnecessary overmedication. Staff received robust training, induction, supervisions and support to provide good quality care tailored to people’s needs. There were effective links with health and social care professionals to seek the best outcomes for people, with demonstrable effect. A relative said, “When I see [person] they are well dressed and looked after.” Another relative said, I feel [person] is safe and always happy as the staff are good.”
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 that staff and management 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.
We received consistently positive feedback about leadership at the service and were told relative’s views were regularly sought. A relative said, “I am happy with the service, and the registered manager is competent.” Another relative told us, “The management is open and honest. I know the [registered] manager by name.” When asked about the best thing about the service, the relative said, “[Person] is happy there. I could not ask for more, and [staff and leaders] are doing their best.”