During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 16 February to 20 March 2026. The service provides care and support to people in supported living settings. This means people receive personal care within their own tenancy or in shared tenancies where 2 or more people live together.
In supported living settings, people's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support. This includes support with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.
This was the service’s first assessment. We reviewed all quality statements. We rated this service overall as outstanding.
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.
People’s outcomes at the service were exceptional. People were supported to live the lives they chose and to engage in activities that mattered to them, as independently as possible. Their needs were assessed holistically and in partnership with them, ensuring care, support, and treatment were effective and personalised.
Staff demonstrated exceptional kindness, empathy, and compassion, and consistently upheld people’s privacy and dignity. They ensured the people they supported were empowered and, with the right encouragement and support, lived active, meaningful, and fulfilling lives. Staff spoke extremely positively about people and were proud of their many achievements and the progress they had made.
We found many examples of people being supported to set meaningful personal goals and make progress towards achieving them. These included taking part in charity and voluntary work, engaging in activities they enjoyed, improving their health and wellbeing, building friendships, and going on holiday.
People had photos and videos capturing these achievements and experiences since joining the service. Where appropriate, these were shared with relatives and provided a vibrant and positive record of people’s lives and progress during their time with the service.
Staff went to great lengths to identify individual barriers that had previously limited their progress. For example, some people joined the service with unaddressed medical and/or mental health needs that caused them distress and pain. Staff worked with other health and social care professionals to ensure these needs were met.
In one notable example, persistent advocacy on behalf of a person led to the identification and treatment of a previously undiagnosed medical condition. As a result, the person experienced a marked reduction in distress and a substantial improvement in their quality of life. The positive impact of staff’s actions in this case was striking and demonstrated how effective assessment and advocacy can transform outcomes for people.
The provider enabled staff to deliver consistently high‑quality, person‑centred care and support. Staff were carefully recruited to ensure they were well matched to the needs and preferences of the people they supported. They received tailored training aligned with current best‑practice models and guidance.
Risks were managed effectively while continuing to promote people’s choice, independence, and access to new experiences. Incidents were appropriately reported and reviewed, with a clear focus on learning and reducing future occurrence. The provider shared learning openly and communicated effectively with health and social care professionals and relatives.
Governance systems were used to oversee and evaluate quality and safety at the service, supporting continuous improvement and the identification of opportunities for innovation and development. People were supported to express their needs and preferences in ways that worked for them, and staff were attentive to each person’s individual communication style. As a result, people were actively involved and had a meaningful voice in all aspects of the service.