Axis Care Group Ltd

Updated 21 January 2026

Date of assessment: 17 February 2026 to 14 April 2026.

Axis Care Group Ltd provide a domiciliary care service and a supported living service. Two separate reports have been completed for each assessment service group. This report is for the supported living service provided.

At the time of the inspection, the supported living service was supporting 2 people with their personal care needs. They had a location/office which was based in Leigh in Wigan but the people they were supporting were based in Manchester.

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.

Breaches of legal regulation were identified in relation to the provider’s governance, involving people to manage risks, staff recruitment processes and medicines management.

Incidents were not always recorded which meant lessons were not always learned. Safeguarding concerns were not always shared quickly or appropriately. People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always reflective of the person’s needs. The provider did not have robust oversight of people’s homes. Staff did not have some training which was essential in them completing their roles safely. Recruitment records were not consistently complete. However, the provider assessed and managed the risk of infection and ensured smooth transitions into the service.

Initial assessments did not always fully inform people’s care plans and risk assessments. The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. People did not have health action plans in place. People’s rights were not always fully respected, in line with the mental capacity act. However, staff did monitor people’s progress and worked well together and with professionals involved with people’s care.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff responded to people’s immediate needs and acted to minimise discomfort. The provider cared about the wellbeing of their staff, which staff reiterated. However, the provider needed to further promote people being independent.

The provider did not always ensure care was person centred. They did not always consider the importance of adapting materials to ensure information was accessible for all. The provider needed to improve forums for people/relatives to give feedback. There were some disparities in people’s experiences using the service. Goals and aspirations needed to be clearer for those being supported. However, the provider did understand the care needs of people and their local communities.

The vision and strategy were not always being achieved by staff. Leaders needed better oversight of the service including more robust governance and quality assurance systems. However, the provider did work in partnership with the local authority, they respected their workforce and there was a good culture within the service.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 21 January 2026

People and those close to them shared mixed views about the care and support provided. Some positive feedback was received about staff being caring, respectful and treating people with dignity. People told us they generally liked the staff team and described them as consistent and approachable. Staff were seen to understand people’s needs and were able to provide support with day-to-day activities, including attending healthcare appointments and supporting people with meals and maintaining their routines. People told us they felt safe living at the service and spoke positively about the environment being calm and peaceful.

However, concerns were raised about whether people’s needs were always being fully met. Feedback indicated concerns about a person’s routine which could impact on their physical health and wellbeing. People told us there were limited opportunities for meaningful activity, with some individuals not being consistently supported to engage in hobbies, interests or time outdoors, which were known to be important to them.

People’s involvement in their care varied. While some individuals told us they felt in control of their daily routines and choices, others said they were not always kept updated about care and treatment. Relatives expressed that they did not always have access to care plans or risk assessments and were not consistently involved in decisions, including during transition into the service. This meant there was a risk that care was not always delivered in line with people’s preferences or known histories.

Feedback about staff knowledge and training was mixed. While some people felt staff understood their needs well, concerns were raised about specific health needs not always being recognised or understood, which could place people at risk. People and relatives also told us they were not always confident staff would respond effectively in situations where individuals displayed behaviours of distress.

People told us there were enough staff available to support them and confirmed that staff were present when needed. They also spoke positively about the management team, describing them as respectful and approachable. However, some feedback indicated communication between the service and relatives could be improved, as updates were described as infrequent.

Overall, while people described positive relationships with staff and aspects of care being delivered well, there were concerns about consistency, meaningful engagement, involvement in care planning and oversight of specific health needs.