During an assessment under our new approach
Date of on-site assessment visits: 27 October 2025 and 25 November 2025.Further review of documents took place off-site,3 November until12 December 2025.We spoke by phone with people’s relatives on 7 November 2025.
HF Trust is a 'supported living' service which provides support packages for people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Each person has their own individual lease agreement with the housing association and a separate contractual agreement for their support.
The service has several 'supported living' settings in the Devon region. This assessment looked at 3 settings which were in Oak Meadow in South Molton, The Coach House in Bampton and Caroline Brewin Court in Tiverton. Each setting contains a number of individual bedrooms or flats and shared or communal gardens, lounges, kitchens and dining areas.
We carried out this comprehensive assessment in response to concerns about medicine errors and the quality-of-care people received. We gave the service 48 hours' notice of the inspection. This was because we intended to visit each setting and needed to gain consent before visiting.
At our last inspection we rated this service good (published2017). This assessment looked at all of the key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We have rated this assessment as good.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
We 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 which most people take for granted. We found people received care in accordance with this guidance and staff had received appropriate training relating to people with a learning disability and autistic people.
Right Support: Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence over their own lives. Staff supported people in ways which allowed people to make day to day decisions. Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life.
Right Care: Person-centred care was promoted. People’s views and decisions about care were incorporated within their care packages. This helped staff to support people in a way which allowed people to have control over their lives and make day-to-day decisions. People's choices were respected, and staff supported them to achieve good outcomes. Staff were kind, respectful and caring. Staff engaged with people in a friendly and caring manner and their conversations with people were good natured.
Right Culture: The culture between leaders, staff and people was open and inclusive. Staff enjoyed their roles and the relationships between staff and people were positive. People received a good standard of care and support because trained staff could meet their needs and wishes. The provider had a range of checks and audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service and to help drive improvements.
The provider had recently engaged a consultant, who was undertaking comprehensive monitoring and audits for the provider. Where shortfalls were identified, an improvement plan was implemented, demonstrating that issues were being actively addressed. This included improvements in people’s care plans and risk assessments. We reviewed 8 people’s records, which varied in quality, however, we were assured this was in the process of being addressed.
Risks were being assessed, and measures were in place to reduce the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints were analysed and lessons learned to reduce future risks. People received the support they needed with their medicines, and this was subject to ongoing monitoring to ensure safety and effectiveness. There were enough staff who were trained to support the people using the service. There was ongoing work to ensure people received support of consistent staff who undertook visits when they were expected.
There were systems in place for people and their representatives, where appropriate, to give feedback about their care, including making complaints. Feedback was used to improve the service.