- Care home
Bethany House
Assessment report published 4 August 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment 16 April to 21 May 2025. The assessment was triggered by concerns received about the quality of the service.
This is a specialist service registered for use by autistic people or people with a learning disability. 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 4 breaches of legal regulation. The provider was previously in breach of 3 legal regulations regarding safe care and treatment, the environment, and the governance of the service. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of these regulations. We identified a further breach relating to person-centred care.
The provider had not made improvements following our previous inspections. Staff did not have clear and consistent guidance to enable them to support people safely. The environment was not always suitable for people’s needs. Medicines were not always managed safely.
Support plans did not always accurately reflect people’s needs. People were not working towards meaningful goals or increasing their independence. Documentation around consent and assessment of capacity was not always in place.
People did not always receive person-centred care including participating in appropriate activities. Staff were not always aware of how other services were monitoring people’s health and the outcomes of health assessments. The provider did not always act on people’s feedback.
Oversight had not identified or resolved the issues we found. Audits were ineffective and based on inaccurate information. We found the quality of the service had deteriorated.
Staff were recruited safely. Staff sought people’s consent before carrying out tasks. We observed kind and caring interactions. Staff recognised when people needed medical treatment and sought this appropriately. The provider had identified some staff did not feel comfortable speaking up and had taken steps to address this. Family members were generally happy with the support provided by the service. Staff spoke positively about the interim manager who had just started in post and told us they had seen improvements under this management. The provider was responsive to our feedback and took steps to address issues identified.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found relating to the environment and person-centre care. In response to the concerns found relating to safe care and treatment and governance, CQC has decided to take civil enforcement action. We will publish this information on our website after any representations have been concluded.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
People's experience of this service
We observed people being treated with kindness and respect. Where we were able to speak with people’s families, they were happy with the support provided. They told us people were happy and settled. One relative told us, “The individual staff team that primarily care for [person] are excellent, they are very friendly and passionate, and interactions are what we would hope for.” Despite this feedback, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards.
People did not always receive person-centred care which was in line with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. People did not have meaningful goals, aims and aspirations they were working towards to enable them to live as fulfilling a life as possible. People were not always supported to be independent and to increase their daily living skills. People were not always supported to take part in activities or to engage in meaningful stimulation that would benefit both their physical and mental wellbeing. We found people’s mobility had declined, along with the frequency people accessed the community and took part in activities which were important to them. The environment did not always meet people’s needs although the provider had taken some steps to address this. The quality of care people received had deteriorated since our previous inspection. The provider was responsive to our feedback and took steps immediately to address the concerns raised.