Charnwood House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had effective processes in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed in a timely and holistic way. Assessments were completed using a multidisciplinary approach, enabling staff to build a well‑rounded understanding of each person’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. People told us they felt involved in shaping their support and that staff took time to understand what mattered to them. One person said, “Staff always include me.” We saw examples where people benefited from coordinated multidisciplinary team (MDT) input to fully explore their needs and aspirations. For example, for 1 person, staff worked alongside psychology, speech and language therapy, and occupational therapy to understand how their communication style, sensory preferences, and daily living skills impacted their wellbeing. This MDT approach helped the person identify clear goals around developing independence in cooking, managing their modified diet and handling their own routines. Staff then used this information to design support that was structured, achievable, and meaningful to the individual.

During the inspection, we found that people received care and treatment that was consistently informed by national guidance and evidence‑based best practice. Staff demonstrated a solid understanding of the clinical and therapeutic approaches relevant to the needs of the people they supported, and they applied this knowledge reliably in day‑to‑day practice. Staff used recognised tools to assess people’s physical and mental health needs, and these were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained accurate and responsive to any changes.

For 1 person, staff supported them within restrictions set by external bodies, such as the Court of Protection, to ensure people remained safe. They demonstrated a clear understanding of the legal frameworks underpinning these restrictions and applied them proportionately. Importantly, staff did not view restrictions as fixed; instead, they continually reviewed people’s progress and sought input from multidisciplinary professionals to identify opportunities to safely reduce restrictions over time. This included gradually decreasing the number of staff required to support one person as their confidence and coping strategies improved. As restrictions reduced, we saw a corresponding improvement in the person’s quality and quantity of social interactions, with staff actively encouraging and facilitating greater independence in line with professional advice.

During the assessment, we found that staff worked well with mental health professionals and other external partners to ensure people received coordinated, person‑centred support. Communication between teams was effective, and decisions about people’s care were informed by a shared understanding of their needs, risks and aspirations.

Staff involved mental health professionals in planning positive risk‑taking so people could safely explore new experiences and develop confidence. We saw examples where psychologists, community mental health nurses and behaviour specialists contributed to risk assessments and support plans, ensuring strategies were evidence‑based and proportionate. This collaborative approach helped staff balance safety with opportunities for growth.

For one-person, mental health professionals supported the service to identify new activities that aligned with the individual’s interests and therapeutic goals. Staff and professionals jointly reviewed potential risks and agreed on clear, practical strategies to support the person safely. As a result, the individual was able to try new experiences, including community‑based activities they had previously been unable to access such as meal out in restaurants.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways that promoted independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support. They demonstrated a good understanding of each person’s health needs and worked proactively with external professionals to ensure people received safe, personalised guidance.

For example, 1 person required support to understand and introduce foods with a modified texture to reduce the risk of choking. Staff worked closely with them to explore new food preparation and cooking techniques so they could continue to enjoy a varied and interesting diet. This person had a long‑term goal of trying a meal from a fast‑food restaurant. The registered manager was working collaboratively with the speech and language therapy team to explore different health pathways that might make this achievable in the future. This included considering additional support, such as dental interventions, which could help reduce choking risks when eating this type of food.

Staff reviewed progress regularly, encouraged the person to build confidence at a safe pace, and ensured all decisions were informed by professional advice. This approach helped the individual work towards their goals while maintaining their safety and wellbeing.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor people’s progress and ensure their care and support continued to meet their needs. Everyone living at the service had an allocated key worker who met with them weekly to review how they were feeling, reflect on recent progress and agree small, achievable aims and goals. These meetings were recorded clearly and showed that staff supported people to build confidence, develop new skills and work towards outcomes that were meaningful to them.

In addition to weekly key‑worker sessions, people had a more detailed review every four weeks. These reviews brought together information from daily records, professional input and the person’s own views to ensure support plans remained accurate and responsive. Where changes were identified, staff updated plans promptly and discussed any new strategies with the wider team to maintain consistency. The management team demonstrated a good standard of monitoring and improving outcomes. Regular reviews, consistent key‑worker involvement and a focus on achievable goals ensured people received support that remained person‑centred, effective and aligned with their ongoing development.

During the assessment, we found that staff understood people’s communication plans well and used their preferred methods consistently when seeking consent. Staff demonstrated a clear awareness of how each person expressed agreement, refusal or uncertainty, and they adapted their approach to ensure people were fully involved in decisions about their care.

Communication plans were detailed and person‑centred, outlining the gestures, signs, symbols or verbal cues each individual used. Staff were familiar with these plans and applied them reliably in day‑to‑day practice. Observations throughout the assessment showed staff checking in with people before offering support, explaining what they were doing and waiting for clear indications of consent before proceeding. This included using visual prompts, simple language, or giving people additional time to process information when needed.