Independent Options Central Support Service

Updated 11 June 2025

The assessment began on 23 June and concluded on 9 July 2025.

We assessed 34 quality statements.

Independent Options provides care and support to people with a learning disability and autistic people, which is described as “supported living”. Supported living is a form of housing where individuals live in their own homes and receive personalised support to promote independence. This support is separate from the housing arrangements and may or may not include personal care. CQC only regulates the personal care aspect of supported living, but not the housing.

This assessment included visits to the provider’s office and 6 properties, telephone calls to relatives of people using the service, as well as speaking to staff. Overall, we spoke to 6 relatives and 14 staff members including Nominated Individual, Registered Manager, office staff and support workers.

This service was registered on 19 July 2023, and this was our first assessment.

We have assessed the service against “Right support, Right care, Right culture” guidance to make judgments about whether the provider guaranteed people with learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Right support:

The service did not always maximise people’s independence, choice and control. Support plans were not always tailored around each person’s unique needs, preferences and aspirations. Staff overall encouraged and enabled people to make their own decisions, supporting them to access the community safely and meaningfully. Staff did not always respond well to changing risks, including deteriorating health, medical emergencies and behaviour that challenged. There were policies and systems in place regarding responding to risks. However, these were not always effective. Following our assessment the provider had taken steps to address the identified concerns in regarding people not always receiving person- centred care.

Right care:

Staff were overall well-intentioned towards people and people generally told us staff were kind and compassionate. Staff usually protected people’s dignity and privacy. However, staff did not always understand people’s individual needs. The provider worked with other agencies. However, we received mixed feedback from stakeholders and partners. Staff had appropriate training on how to recognise and report abuse. However, they did not always know how to apply it. Staff were aware of people’s different communication needs but did not always know how to meet them. Following from our assessment the provider had taken steps to ensure that staff always had the right skills and knowledge to support people and to provide good care.

Right culture:

The culture within the management team was not always open and transparent. Leaders and staff did not always share goals centred around delivery of good care to people, commitment to equality, respect and continuous improvement. Senior managers were not always visible and active within the service and the risk of closed culture was not recognised and addressed. Local partners in health and social care provided mixed feedback about the culture within the service. Following our assessment the senior leaders within the organisation had taken steps to proactively address the concerns around the lack of transparency, culture and supporting and enabling both staff, people and their relatives to speak up and to share their feedback.

Following our assessment of this service we issued provider with an action plan to tell us how the provider intends to make changes and address the areas of concerns we identified. We will check this next time we visit.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements.

Special measures provide framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

Updated 11 June 2025

We found people were not always receiving care and support in line with Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture.The model of care and the setting had not always maximised people’s choice control and independence. Staff were well-intentioned towards people and overall knew people well. However, care was not always person-centred and did not always promote people’s dignity, privacy and human rights. The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff did not ensure that people using the service lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives. Relatives shared with us mixed feedback about the service and staff.

Staff overall knew people well. However, people’s individual needs were not always met. People were not always able to make choices about how they spent their time, maintained independence or developed new skills. People received support with hydration and nutrition. However, people did not always have access to or were presented with healthy food choices. People were not always supported to live healthier lives. Some relatives told us that at times people did not have access to medical professionals when required. People’s care plans were not always personalised and lacked information on how to support them.

People’s communication care plans were not always clear, and staff did not always know how to communicate with people effectively and how to understand them. The provider did not always seek the views of people, relatives and other stakeholders to ensure care was safe, effective and responsive. Relatives shared their concerns about speaking up and raising issues. Some relatives were not clear on the provider’s complaints policy. However, they knew who to speak to and with whom to raise concerns if required.

Following our feedback leaders within the organisation had taken prompt action to address some of the areas of concerns we had raised.