- Care home
1-2 Canterbury Close
Assessment report published 12 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 6 October to 14 October 2026. The service is a care home providing support to younger adults with a physical or learning disability. The service can support up to 10 people. At the time of our assessment there were 9 people living at the home. We carried out an assessment looking at all the quality statements and all key questions. Our decision to inspect the service was due to the age of the rating. At our last assessment the service was rated good. At this assessment the service remained good.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
We found the provider was meeting the principles of 'Right support, right care, right culture'. The service was larger than current best practice guidance, however, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design. It was 2 separate domestic style properties which fitted in with the local area.
We found some areas where minor improvements were required to ensure the home maintained appropriate infection prevention and control, environmental safety, medicine optimisation and improvements to governance systems to consistently identify and address issues. Following our inspection the registered manager took swift action to make improvements to the service.
Risks associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. Risk assessments and care plans were detailed and care was delivered in line with them. Staff were recruited safely and received training and support to carry out their role effectively. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision sessions with their line manager. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse.
People’s needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with them. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed at least every 6 months, or sooner if required.People received sufficient food and hydration to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Modified diets were provided for people who required them and staff assisted people with food and drinks as appropriate. People had access to healthcare professionals and staff took on board their advice and guidance to keep people safe.
Staff knew people well and showed kindness to them. People had access to an activity co-ordinator who arranged and provided social stimulation and events. People also had daily access to the community and their choices were respected.
Information about the service was available to people and displayed throughout the care environment. People had access to a complaint’s procedure, and several forums were available for people to share feedback about their experiences. Outcomes for people reflected the principles and values of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.
There was a governance system in place and audits were carried out to check standards. However, these had not always been effective in identifying some of the areas of concern we found during the inspection. The registered manager and provider responded positively to the concerns we raised. They addressed the concerns and made improvements to their systems.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with people and their relatives to gather their views of the service. Where people had specific communication needs, we observed interactions between them, their peers, and staff to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Staff protected people’s privacy, dignity and respect at all times. Staff offered reassurance, kindness, patience, humour, and emotional support.
People told us the staff were nice, friendly and they shared appropriate banter with them. One person said, “The staff are my friends.” One relative said, “[1-2 Canterbury Close] is very good. Most of the staff are brilliant and go above and beyond.” Another relative said, “At the moment the service is better than it was a few months ago. Staffing is better due to the new manager. The staff are happier.”
Relatives told us they were happy their family members were in a safe place. One relative said, “[1-2 Canterbury Close] is a good service. It is one of the better ones and I am happy [family member] is in a safe place.”
People and relatives were involved in discussions about their care and support. One relative said, “[Staff] sometimes share [family member's] care plan with me, and I know I can look at it anytime. I have just been to a [care plan] review and my [family member] was there. [Family member] said they were happy. I have no concerns and I would let someone know if I wasn't happy.” Another relative said, “[Staff] inform me of [family member’s] care plan, and [staff] ring me with any changes or updates. I am very happy with the service and the staff are lovely. They greet me nicely and are welcoming and professional.”
People had access to the healthcare they required. Relatives were happy with how the staff interacted with external professionals to ensure their family member received good support. One relative said, “[Family member] saw the dentist last week. The doctors are good. [Family member] used to have a problem with eating, but this has improved. The staff understand [family member's] needs.”
People and relatives were complimentary about the registered manager. One relative said, “The manager is very good. I can go and find them, and they will hear me out. [The manager] is approachable.”