- Care home
SeeAbility - Denecroft Residential Home
Assessment report published 4 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
The service is a residential care home registered to provide care for up to 6 people with sensory impairments and people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. There were 4 people using the service at the time of the assessment.
Who the service is for
The service supports people with sensory impairments and people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 14 and 16 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this unannounced 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.
We assessed the service against ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was meeting this guidance, which meant people were supported in a way which maximised their dignity, choice and access to their local community. The service was situated in a residential area and there were no outward signs to differentiate it from other houses in the street. Local shops and amenities were within walking distance of the service.
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 and understood their responsibilities. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for.
People were not subjected to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice and freedom over their lives as much as possible, and staff worked with partners to encourage people’s independence. One relative told us, “We work together to support [person] lead a full life.” A healthcare professional who regularly visited the service commented, “The staff are supportive and act appropriately in gathering consent from relatives and next of kin for the [treatment].” A member of staff told us, “Some people can make unwise decisions. If somebody doesn’t have capacity, then we hold a best interests meeting.”
We found there was a positive learning culture and the registered manager regularly reviewed incidents to reduce the risk of them happening again. People were supported by enough staff with the appropriate skills and training, and staff were recruited safely. One member of staff told us, “The culture is great and the manager grows your confidence as well because we are always learning something new.”
Risks were assessed, regularly reviewed, and people were involved in decisions about their care. Care records were person-centred and included details on people’s health and social care needs. There was sufficient information recorded in people’s care records to enable staff to support them effectively.
People’s medicines were managed safely, accurately recorded and regularly reviewed by relevant healthcare professionals. Where we found minor areas of improvement in relation to the level of detail in ‘when required’ protocols, the registered manager addressed these before we attended for our second day.
Staff understood how to recognise potential signs of abuse and how to report these. One member of staff told us, “If I see someone with bruises, I would report it to the manager and if the manager does not act upon it then I will report it to the safeguarding team.”
The registered manager undertook regular staff supervisions to monitor performance and provide support. Staff told us they felt valued and that the service was well-led. One member of staff said, “I do feel valued. It was a dream to do level three [national vocational qualification] and it’s developed into something tangible and I’m finishing it next month.” Another member of staff said, “I feel very supported by my manager and my skills development. He’s supported me throughout.”
The registered manager and staff understood their responsibility to ensure people had equity in experiences and outcomes. The provider undertook regular checks of the environment to ensure it was safe for people and adaptations had been made to the service so people were able to live as independently as possible. Staff understood people’s communication needs and provided information in a suitable format. One member of staff told us, “You learn about the communication methods because we have non-verbal people here.”
People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service and regularly reviewed when they moved in. Assessments considered the person’s medical and social history and what was important to them, such as attending a local place of worship. Assessments were undertaken in different ways depending on people’s preferences. For example, by staying in the service overnight before all parties agreed whether the home would be suitable. Staff used nationally recognised guidance to support people’s care, for example to help them recognise whether a person’s health has changed.
Staff worked well with healthcare professionals to monitor and improve people’s outcomes. One healthcare professional told us, “Denecroft have also liaised with the primary care liaison learning disability nurse to arrange an education session on [specific] examinations and how the staff can support the residents in these.”
When the registered manager received complaints, these were investigated appropriately and we saw action had been taken in response. For example, when a person complained about the environment prior to our site visit, we saw during our assessment that this had been addressed and there were systems in place to ensure it was effectively monitored in the future.
The registered manager and the provider regularly completed audits to monitor the quality of care and to ensure effective oversight. We found a culture of learning and improvement, and the registered manager was motivated to make the improvements we highlighted during the assessment.
People's experience of this service
People indicated they felt safe living at the service. We used a variety of ways to communicate with people in their preferred style, and this included observations. We observed there were sufficient appropriately skilled staff who knew people well and that people’s medicines were managed safely. One person said, “Everybody is kind.”
Relatives told us staff monitored people’s health, escalated healthcare concerns appropriately with the relevant professionals, and staff kept them updated about the progress and changes to treatment. One relative told us, “Staff are also supporting [person] through a [specific] health matter with empathy and help where required.”
We observed interactions between staff and people. We found staff treated people in a kind and compassionate way and understood how people liked to spend their time. Staff put people at the centre when planning activities. Staff offered people choices and respected their decisions. Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed that they were involved in decisions relating to people’s care.
People and their relatives told us the service was well-led and that there was a positive culture. A relative said, “The team work well together, [staff member] is a huge bonus as she fully understands her residents needs and that they should live life to the full while exploring new skills and ventures.”