Updated 9 September 2025
Date of inspection: 15 September to 6 October 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 15 people. Not everyone using the service received personal care, which is the regulated activity assessed during this inspection. The provider was supporting 6 people with the regulated activity.
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.
Staff learned from incidents and reflected on how to improve care. They understood safeguarding and could identify and report abuse. Policies supported staff in managing people’s distress, but care plans lacked detail for consistent approaches.
Mental capacity assessments were completed, and best interest decisions were made when needed. However, not all individuals had DoLS applications submitted. While consent was generally respected, assessments didn’t clearly show how decisions were communicated or received. The provider was working with the local authority to resolve this.
People were supported to take positive risks in safe, well-maintained environments. Staffing shortages were mostly covered by agency staff or staff overtime, but this sometimes affected 1:1 support and how people chose to spend their time. Some staff lacked knowledge of statutory guidance, especially around medication and person-centred care.
Recruitment checks were in place, and new staff received induction, training, and supervision. Infection control was effective, with PPE and training provided. Medicines were administered safely, though staff needed more information on their purpose and side effects.
Care plans reflected assessed needs and preferences but could be generic and repetitive, lacking clear, specific guidance for staff. Staff worked with external professionals, though internal communication needed improvement. Healthy lifestyles and routine health checks were promoted, but care outcomes weren’t always well documented.
Staff were compassionate and responsive, with care tailored to people’s preferences. Staff wellbeing was supported by the new manager and deputy manager but some staff felt a lack of support from other leaders.
Staff worked well with other services, and feedback gathered informed improvements. Healthcare access was facilitated, but staff weren’t always aware of national initiatives like LeDeR to help improve health services for people with learning disabilities.
Leadership was visible and inclusive, with staff confident in raising concerns. Regular meetings encouraged staff input, and audits ensured safety and accountability. External professionals raised no concerns.