Mentaur Community Support Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Leaders had not ensured people or their relatives were regularly involved in planning or making decisions about their care and support. The registered manager told us they complete care reviews then send them to relatives to see if they wanted to make any changes. This was discussed during this assessment, and the RM assured us steps would be taken to address this.

Although we observed some person-centred care interactions between staff and people, this was not consistently reflected in the care planning or decision-making process.

People were not consistently supported to understand their options for care, support or treatment, and were not involved in ways appropriate to their needs. Staff did not consistently support people to take part in the planning of their care.

We found no clear evidence that people's views had been sought, encouraged, or used to inform decisions in the review of their care plans. We were not assured that all reasonable steps had been taken to help people express their wishes or make their own decisions about their care and support.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Some people were supported to attend regular outings and activities in the community.

People were supported by a mainly consistent team, which helped ensure continuity of care and familiarity.

Staff were provided with information about people's health conditions and supported people to attend appointments, helping maintain good health outcomes.

Training records showed staff had received the required induction and training in learning disability and autism, supporting consistent and informed care delivery.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service user guide and complaints policy were available in easy-read format. However, people's care plans were not provided in easy-read versions, meaning information was not

always accessible. The RM told us steps would be taken to address this.

The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the Accessible Information Standard and staff had received training in General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Picture cards were available and used when required to support communication.

Relatives raised no concerns about how information was provided, shared or stored. One

relative told us, “Not really had too much information. What we have we understand.”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We reviewed residents’ meetings from 2025, and a feedback survey from 2024. No surveys had been completed in 2025; therefore, we could not be assured people's feedback was routinely sought.

The complaints we reviewed were responded to in line with the provider's policy.

Relatives told us they felt listened to. One relative told us,"They do listen to us and support us when needed.” However, some people told us concerns raised at residents’ meetings had to repeatably be raised as concerns were not always fully addressed.

The Registered Manager knew how to access advocacy services should people require this.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

An on-call system was in place, and staff told us calls were responded to promptly.

The service user guide was available in easy-to-read format to support accessibility.

People and their relatives told us they had access to support when needed.

The premises were suitable accessible for the people living there.

Staff supported people to attend appointments where necessary, helping ensure equitable access to healthcare and support.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People were not always treated as individuals. Care records did not consistently evidence how people's strengths, goals or aspirations were used to shape their care or to support them to live more independently.

The provider had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy, and staff received training in EDI in line with the Equality Act 2010.

There was no meaningful monitoring or evaluation of people's outcomes, so that the service could not consistently demonstrate whether people were achieving positive or equitable experiences. Staff and leaders showed an understanding of the potential discrimination and inequality people may face in the community.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Some people had expressed a desire for independent living in the future during key worker meetings and they told us during this assessment. However, there was no evidence of plans, actions, or support in place to help them work towards these goals.

We saw no evidence that people's advanced wishes or DNACPR preferences had been discussed or recorded. This was addressed with the registered manager during this assessment who assured us this would be recorded moving forward.

Relatives mainly told us these conversations had not taken place. One relative told us, “We have not discussed the future.” Another said, “We have not had a conversation.”