- Homecare service
Bradbury Outreach Services
Assessment report published 12 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment 11 February 2026 to 26 February 2026. Bradbury Outreach Services is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people with a learning disability and autistic people living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received the regulated activity personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the assessment, 3 people were receiving the regulated activity personal care.
We have 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.
We carried out this assessment in response to the age of the rating. At our last assessment we rated the service good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.
People were supported safely. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and were confident in reporting concerns. There were very few incidents because staff knew people well and what triggered their anxieties. When needed they provided calm and skilled de-escalation. Risk management was personalised and reflected people’s preferences, communication needs and the structured routines that helped them feel secure. Staff worked well with professionals where appropriate and maintained strong relationships with families, who remained closely involved in planning their family members care. Medicines were managed safely.
There were some gaps in staff training and staff recruitment records. The manager told us they were addressing this during the assessment.
Staff understood people’s individual communication styles and preferences, including non-verbal communication, signs, gestures and the use of visual prompts.
The culture within the service was positive. Staff morale was high and staff told us they felt valued, well supported and confident to raise concerns or seek advice. Managers were approachable, compassionate and knowledgeable about the people they supported. Staff consistently reported that leaders were responsive, available and maintained strong oversight of day-to-day care. There were examples of learning being shared across the team through daily logs, supervision and the service’s communication systems.
The providers governance and oversight systems had not identified some of the concerns we found. The manager acknowledged the gaps we found and had already begun strengthening oversight. A consolidated action plan was in place, informed by feedback from local authorities and an external consultant, and we saw evidence of progress. Staff training gaps had been identified and work was underway to ensure this was completed. Progress was also evident in record keeping, and managers were meeting regularly to monitor improvement actions. The manager was in the process of applying to be the registered manager. They were being supported by the previous registered manager in the interim.
People's experience of this service
People’s relatives consistently told us they were happy with the support their family member received. They described staff as kind, patient and committed to helping their family member live fulfilling lives. Relatives valued the stability the service provided and said staff understood people well, which made a positive difference to their confidence and daily routines. People experienced consistent, kind and person centred support delivered by staff who knew them well. Relatives were unanimously positive and told us their family members felt safe, happy and benefited from structured routines that reduced anxiety and helped them thrive.
Relatives described staff as “A joy”, “Fantastic,” and “Very good at following protocols,” and told us the consistency and reliability of staff had made a significant difference to people’s wellbeing. Relatives said staff recognised people’s anxieties early, used calm reassurance, and adapted support to prevent distress. Several people had complex communication needs, staff knew people’s individual ways of communicating. This helped people feel understood and supported to express their views and make day‑to‑day decisions. People experienced stable and consistent staffing. Staffing continuity helped people build trusting relationships, try new activities and manage routines that mattered to them. Relatives said staff were reliable and flexible, and they appreciated that managers communicated well when changes were needed. Where people required increased support in the community, staff understood the reasons for this and planned activities carefully to reduce anxiety and keep people safe. People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, including swimming, Zumba, day service sessions, day trips and community outings. Staff encouraged people to try new things at their own pace. Structured routines were especially important for some people, and staff worked with families to plan predictable but meaningful weekly timetables. Relatives told us these routines had improved people’s wellbeing, confidence and independence. Relatives said they felt able to raise concerns. They described managers as approachable, responsive and supportive. Staff and managers knew people well and were committed to improving the service in partnership with individuals, families and professionals. This resulted in people benefiting from stable relationships, meaningful activities and support that reflected what mattered to them.