During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
The service is a care home. There were 10 people using the service at the time of the inspection. The service is based over 2 floors and has a large garden and communal areas. Each person had their own bedroom.
Who the service is for
The service supports people living with a mental health diagnosis. The service uses a household model of care. People live in small groups that share a kitchen, lounge and dining area. This helps create a familiar home environment where staff can support people in a more personal and flexible way.
Our view of the service
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 13 October 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.
There was enough staff on each shift to ensure people received care and support when they needed it and didn’t need to wait. People were given their medicines when they were supposed to take them and were supported to see health professionals such as a doctor when they needed to and records confirmed this. The registered manager told us, “If a resident is admitted to hospital we stay with them. We have a hospital rota in place if there is anyone ever in hospital.” Medicines were managed safely and records confirmed this. Medicines audits were robust.
Staff were given the training they needed to support people safely. Training records showed that all staff were up to date with their training. A member of staff told us, “I have received training and continue to receive training to carry out my role safely and effectively. In-house training is reviewed annually, which helps me refresh my knowledge, maintain my skills and keep up to date with good care practices.”
The provider ensured the environment was safe and well maintained. The registered manager told us about regular fire drills, and we saw equipment was tested regularly to make sure it was safe and well maintained. During our inspection the provider was carrying out checks for their upcoming fire inspection.
People were supported to make decisions about their care and support and their care was delivered in line with individual needs and preferences. Where people chose to take positive risks, staff respected these decisions and put proportionate, person‑centred measures in place to support them safely. The registered manager told us, “It’s about each person individually. Risk assessments are bespoke to their needs. We don’t have a blanket approach.”
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 principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about some aspects of their care, the 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.
Care was delivered by staff who received training on caring for people with compassion. One member of staff told us, “I support residents with compassion, patience, respect and understanding, recognising each resident’s needs and preferences. I take time to communicate with residents, listen to their concerns and build trusting relationships so that they feel comfortable expressing their feelings and needs.”
People who used the service had input into their care planning and they were cared for in a way they had chosen. They were supported to visit their friends and family and visitors to the service were made to feel welcome.
Staff listened to people and those important to them, involving them in decisions about their care and acting on their views where improvements were needed. The registered manager told us, “We have residents weekly discussion about the complaints procedure and what to do if they’re not happy. And also a more formal resident meeting every month.”
The service took appropriate steps to reduce inequalities, ensuring people received fair access to care and support that met their diverse needs. The service was very proactive at enabling people, and those important to them, to share feedback, raise concerns and be actively involved in decisions about their care.
There was a positive and inclusive culture, with staff understanding the service’s values and working together to deliver good quality care. The provider had effective systems in place to oversee the service, manage risks, and support safe, consistent and sustainable care. A member of staff told us, “The support and encouragement from the management team help me carry out my responsibilities effectively and continue to develop professionally. I particularly appreciate the way the home supports staff to provide the best possible care for residents.” The service used learning from feedback, incidents and reviews to make improvements and support ongoing development.