- Care home
130 Whitworth Road
Assessment report published 29 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The service is a care home. There were 4 people using the service at the time of the inspection. This service supports people with a learning disability.
We carried out this assessment on 12 June and 15 June 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 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 assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disabilityrespect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
Staff supported people in line with this guidance. For example, people were supported to regularly access the community. People were supported to be independent and have choice and control over their lives. Staff knew people well.
People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people were involved in the process. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were administered safely and there were systems in place to ensure the environment was safe.
People’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them moving to the service. People’s health and care needs were monitored and reviewed where required.
Staff were kind and compassionate. We observed staff using a kind and caring tone when speaking with people and supporting people in line with their interests. People were encouraged to be independent where possible.
People received person centred care. For example, during one of our site visits, some people chose to go to a pub, while one person chose to stay at home. This choice was respected and this person was supported to take part in a different activity of their choice.
The service was well led. There were a range of audits and governance systems to ensure the service operated safely and effectively. Staff spoke positively about working for the service. There was a strong learning culture at the service where staff felt able to feed back and share new ideas.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 3 people who lived at the service and completed observations of care. People told us they felt safe and knew who to speak to if they had any concerns. People told us they liked the staff who supported them and told us they enjoyed going out regularly. Comments from people included, “I like it here, I like all my mates” and “I like it here, we get to go on trips and stuff.”
People said they liked their bedrooms. One of the people we spoke with told us they would like some new furniture for their bedroom and their bedroom to be painted; we fed this back to the manager. People told us they liked the manager of the service.
We observed staff supported people kindly. We observed one person laughing and joking with staff on several occasions during our site visits. People were supported by warm and friendly staff. We observed one interaction where a staff member did not ask for consent. We also observed some language used was not always appropriate. We raised this with the manager who told us they would address this. However, all other interactions observed were positive.
We observed staff empowering people to make their own decisions around their care. For example, staff encouraged people to join in with lunchtime preparation. People were offered the choice of what they wanted for lunch. We also observed some people going out in the evening to the pub; after expressing they would like to do this. This demonstrated people were supported to live their lives in line with their preferences, without any unnecessary restrictions.