During an assessment under our new approach
Date of inspection: 29 August to 11 September 2025. The service is a Supported Living service. Supported Living services aim to support people to live as independently as possible. Care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements, and CQC does not regulate the premises used. At the time of the inspection the provider was supporting 13 people. Not everyone using the service received personal care, which is the regulated activity assessed during this inspection. The provider was supporting 1 person with the regulated activity.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgments 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.
Staff learned from incidents but weren’t always sure how self-reflection when things went wrong was supported. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and could identify and report abuse. No restrictive practices were used, but policies were in place to offer guidance for staff should people become distressed.
People were supported to take positive risks. People’s homes were safe, well-maintained, and emergency contacts were clear. Staffing levels were sufficient, but some staff lacked an understanding of statutory guidance and best practice in areas of areas of medicines, mental capacity assessments and person-centred care.
Recruitment checks were in place, and staff received and induction, which included shadowing opportunities, supervision, training and skill assessments. Infection control was effective, with PPE and training provided. Medicines were managed safely, though staff didn’t always understand their purpose or side effects.
Care plans were based on assessed needs and reflected preferences. Staff collaborated with other professionals but told us internal communication and teamwork needed improvement.
Healthy lifestyles were promoted, and health checks were routine. Care outcomes were reviewed but not clearly recorded, making evidence of outcomes unclear. Consent was respected, but mental capacity assessments lacked detail on how decisions were explained.
Staff were empathetic, respectful, and responsive to urgent needs. Care was flexible and aligned with personal preferences, including gender-specific requests. Staff wellbeing was supported, though some staff told us they did not always feel listened to by leaders.
Care was personalised, but staff lacked awareness of best practice guidance. Services collaborated well, and people’s feedback shaped improvements. Access to health services was supported, with barriers identified and addressed. Health monitoring and future planning were discussed, but staff were unaware of important initiatives that supported national improvements for people with learning disabilities to access health services.
Leaders were visible, inclusive, and promoted the organisations values. Staff felt safe to speak up and knew policies and procedures around how to raise concerns. Regular meetings supported staff to contribute to how the service was managed, by making suggestions and sharing ideas. Systems ensured safety and accountability, with monthly checks and action plans put in place. External professionals gave positive feedback. The leadership team welcomed ideas, supported diversity, and offered flexible work options.