- Homecare service
Ascend Support (Ealing)
Assessment report published 21 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This was the first assessment of the service, carried out between 30 September and 7 October 2026. The service was registered on 28 November 2023.
Ascend Support (Ealing) is a supported living service that provides personal care and support to adults, including people with learning disabilities, autistic people, people living with dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. At assessment, 1 person received the regulated activity. Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is to help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social support provided.
We assessed the service against Right support, right care, right culture guidance to determine whether it ensured people with a learning disability and autistic people received respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and access to their local community. The service worked in line with the principles of Right support, right care, right culture. People were supported to exercise choice and control, maintain important relationships and participate in activities within their local community. We found no evidence of a closed culture.
People experienced personalised care that reflected their individual communication needs, preferences and routines. Staff knew people well and used this knowledge to provide consistent support. Feedback from people, relatives and professionals was positive and described improvements in wellbeing, stability and quality of life.
The service operated from a community-based setting that promoted inclusion and participation. Staff supported people to access healthcare, community activities and family relationships. Reasonable adjustments were made to meet people's communication and sensory needs, helping to reduce barriers and promote equality of experience.
There were sufficient numbers of trained and competent staff to meet people's needs safely. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and used person-centred approaches to support people safely while promoting independence. Medicines were managed safely, and staff used positive behaviour support and least restrictive approaches to reduce distress and avoid unnecessary use of medicines.
Care and support were generally effective and responsive to people's needs. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals and relatives to support positive outcomes. People were involved in decisions about their care and future wishes, and care was adapted when needs changed.
The service demonstrated a caring culture. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and supported them to express their views using personalised communication approaches. Positive relationships between people and staff contributed to people feeling safe, valued and supported.
However, governance systems had not always identified inconsistencies in care records. We found shortfalls in emergency evacuation planning, assessment reviews, risk records, clinical guidance and some Mental Capacity Act 2005 records. Following our feedback, the provider updated the PEEP to clarify the people’s location, mobility aids, required staffing support, assembly point and daytime and night-time evacuation procedures. The provider also supplied a staff read-and-sign record showing relevant staff had read the revised plan. This provided assurance that the updated emergency information had been shared with staff and reduced the immediate risk associated with inaccurate or incomplete information.
Overall, the provider delivered good-quality, and person-centred care. People achieved positive outcomes and were supported to live meaningful lives with choices, independence and inclusion within their community. Leadership promoted an open culture and demonstrated a commitment to learning and continuous improvement.
People's experience of this service
People experienced kind, respectful and person-centred support. People and their relatives told us they felt safe and that staff understood their routines, communication, interests and preferences. One person said they liked living at the service and described staff positively. A relative said the person’s wellbeing, happiness, stability and quality of life had improved significantly.
We gathered evidence through feedback from people and relatives, staff discussions, professional feedback, surveys and care records. Staff adapted their communication using clear language, writing, visual resources, British Sign Language and lip-reading, where appropriate. Staff also used their knowledge of people’s behaviour, routines and non-verbal communication to understand their choices and experiences.
People received support that promoted their human rights, dignity, privacy, autonomy and community inclusion. Staff supported people to make everyday choices, take part in activities and maintain important relationships. Reasonable adjustments addressed sensory needs, communication barriers, processing time and the need for predictability. Staff used Positive Behaviour Support and least restrictive approaches. A relative described a significant reduction in distress and reliance on medicines because staff understood the person’s communication and triggers.
People and relatives were involved in care planning and could raise concerns. Survey responses were positive, although 1 person wanted more opportunities to go out and to remain informed about their care plan. While people described positive experiences, some records were inconsistent or overdue for review. The provider corrected these following our feedback. We found no evidence that these recording concerns had resulted in poor outcomes.
People were treated fairly and individually. We found no evidence that protected characteristics resulted in unequal access, experiences or outcomes.