- Care home
43 Station Road
Assessment report published 8 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment from 11 March to 12 March 2026. 43 Station Road is a care home without nursing providing support for up to 6 adults with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of our assessment, 4 people were using the service.
At the last inspection, the service was rated requires improvement and was in breach regulations relating tosafe care and treatment and good governance. During this assessment, we found continued breaches of these legal regulations and new breaches relating to person centred care. We discussed the concerns identified with the management team during the assessment to begin addressing these issues.
We assessed the service against the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance. The provider was not consistently working in line with this guidance. Staff were not aware of the guidance, and people’s needs, preferences, aspirations and outcomes were not routinely reviewed in accordance with its principles. This limited people’s opportunity to live an ordinary life and be supported in ways that reflected their individual choices and goals.
People were not consistently supported to manage identified risks, including risks associated with food and drink. Although support plans contained detailed information, guidance was not always followed, placing people at risk.
Oversight systems were not effective. Managers did not ensure audit processes were robust enough to identify and respond to concerns, including those relating to medicine storage temperatures. However, managers took prompt action to address these issues when they were raised during the assessment.
Support plans contained guidance on non‑verbal communication and confirming people’s choices. However, staff did not consistently use these methods, and some records did not reflect respectful language.
The service was supported by a new leadership team who had taken action to stabilise the service and address issues that had not been effectively managed previously. While leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of person‑centred care and spoke positively about plans to improve the service, improvements were not yet embedded, and governance arrangements had not assured sustained compliance.
Leaders and managers were approachable and promoted an inclusive culture aligned with the provider’s values.
People's experience of this service
People were not able to provide us with verbal feedback. We relied on observations of care and feedback from relatives to understand people’s experiences.
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. They demonstrated a caring approach and were familiar with individual routines. We saw that the staff offered people choices. However, we did not observe staff always using different non-verbal communication methods in line with people’s preferred communication style. This limited people’s opportunities to express their wishes.
We also spoke with relatives, who told us they did not always feel involved in people’s care and support or updated when changes occurred. Relatives recognised there was a new manager in post and expressed a desire to be more involved in care reviews. They wanted to work in partnership with the service to support people in going out, trying new activities and having new experiences. The manager had planned to review how people spent their time and explore meaningful opportunities aligned to their individual preferences.
Despite these concerns, relatives spoke positively about how staff treated people and told us staff made them feel welcome when visiting. Whilst people and relatives expressed general satisfaction with their care and treatment, our assessment found that some elements of care and support did not always meet the expected standards.