During an assessment under our new approach
We carried out a responsive assessment at East Hampshire DCA between the 3 and 10 March 2026. This assessment was prompted due to concerns raised to CQC in relation to staff culture and the age of the service’s rating.
East Hampshire DCA is a supported living service providing care for older people, younger adults, individuals with a sensory impairment, learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or physical disability. At the time of the inspection, 14 people were using the service. CQC only inspects where people are receiving the regulated activity personal care. We assessed the service in line with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to determine whether people with a learning disability and autistic people were supported with respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence, and good access to their local communities that most people take for granted.
The provider was in breach of 3 legal regulations relating to person‑centred care, safe care and treatment and good governance.
The provider did not always evidence people were consistently offered meaningful choice or involved in setting their goals and planning activities. Records did not always demonstrate agreed funded one‑to‑one staff support for people and relatives reported they lacked clarity about the support people were receiving and how this was being delivered. Important tenancy information was not provided in a format people could understand, meaning some individuals were unable to make fully informed decisions about their rights and responsibilities.
Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and treatment, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not always been completed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The provider did not have robust processes in place to identify potential health and safety issues. The provider had not ensured all risks to people had been mitigated and managed, for example, hazards in the garden, including broken furniture and unsafe decking, were not identified in the provider’s visual inspection checklist or environmental risk assessment. Fire evacuation records did not clearly detail who had participated in drills, meaning we could not be assured that all people, particularly those needing additional support had practised safe evacuation procedures.
Staff and members of the management team were observed to be kind, caring and respectful in their interactions with people. They demonstrated a good understanding of individuals' needs, preferences and routines. The registered manager was new in post and took our feedback positively, adding any newly identified concerns to the service action plan.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.