During an assessment under our new approach
Date of assessment: 24 November to 18 December 2025. Creative Support – Cecil Gardens provides personal care to people living within their own homes. The service supports both older and younger people including people living with dementia, people with a learning disability or autistic people and people with physical disabilities. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our assessment, there were 18 people receiving personal care and support. This is the first assessment for Creative Support – Cecil Gardens.
We have 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.
People were safe and protected from the risk of avoidable harm. There was a culture of learning from incidents to drive improvements. Safeguarding responsibilities were understood and information was shared transparently with the relevant agencies. The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. The provider operated safe recruitment practices and staff received training for their role. We discussed the need to ensure staff received training to support people with their individual needs with the provider. Medicines were safely managed, however, time specific medicines had not been given correctly to people who required this. The provider addressed this immediately. Detailed risk assessments were in place however, these had not been consistently updated to reflect changes in need.
People received effective support. Appropriate referrals were made to other agencies for advice and support. The provider sought to understand what people wanted from their care, and information was available in different formats tailored to people’s needs. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent.
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted. Some staff told us their well-being had been significantly affected because of the changes made in the running of the service. They did not always feel they could raise concerns.
Person-centred information was available to guide how care was provided. Staff knew the people they cared for. The provider understood the importance of caring well for people at the end of their lives and training and information helped guide staff practice.
The provider was keen to ensure an environment of learning and improvement. Members of the provider’s management team were regularly at the service helping to drive improvements and promote continuity. Routes were available for staff to raise concerns. Checks and audits were completed to assess the quality and safety of the service, but these had not always been effective in identifying areas for improvements. For example, time specific medicines were not administered at the correct time, and risk assessments did not always contain relevant information.