During an assessment under our new approach
Real Life Options – 96 Bishopton Road is a care home providing support for up to 6 people. There were 6 people using the service at the time of the inspection. The 2-storey house is divided into 2 self-contained flats with 3 people living in each.
This is a specialist service for people with a physical disability, learning disability and autistic people. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgments 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 carried out this assessment from 17 August to 4 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.
People were protected from avoidable harm because staff and the management team understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to recognise and report concerns. Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were appropriately assessed and managed. However, window safety checks were not in line with current safety standards and window restrictors needed to be updated to be tamper proof. Immediate action was taken by the registered manager to address any risks posed and to arrange updated restrictors. Some areas of the home had recently been redecorated but other areas and some of the furniture, were looking a little tired. The provider had an ongoing home improvement plan and was aiming to make more updates over coming months. Storage around the home was limited and on our first visit there were several items stored in a bathroom area. We flagged this as being unsuitable and when we returned on our second visit this had improved.
Safe recruitment practices were followed, and there were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs. Staff spoke positively about training and support available to them. One told us, “Training is good. Monthly online training and regular classroom training.”
Medicine stock was not always effectively managed and medicine administration records were not always completed accurately or in full. The provider responded positively to this feedback and was looking at ways to improve this. However, people received their medicines when they needed them. Staff supported people safely with medicines using a person-centred approach that was consistent with information in their support plans. The team had reached out and worked with medical professionals to reduce the amount of medicine a person was taking and this had been very successful.
People's needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with current best practice and guidance. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their support; this ensured they received personalised care in line with their preferences and diverse needs. People were supported to maintain good health and wellbeing and had access to healthcare services when required. The provider ensured people were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives. A member of staff told us, “The staff team go out of their way in enabling each person to achieve their goals.”
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. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (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.
People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who promoted choices in a way people understood. Staff spoke to and about people with warmth, acknowledged their individuality and respected their dignity. People’s independence was promoted by staff in all areas of their life to ensure people lived the life they wanted. A member of staff told us they promoted independence by, “focusing on individual strength of people we support and encouraging them to do a task on their own.”
Governance systems were effective in monitoring quality, safety and performance. Staff felt supported by management and worked collaboratively to continuously improve the service. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was actively sought and used to drive improvements. A member of staff told us, “My managers are supportive, listen and respond to concerns appropriately.”