During an assessment under our new approach
The assessment was carried out between 16 February 2026 and 9 March 2026. The assessment was carried out due to the length of time since the last rating was published.
People received a good standard of care from a staff team who knew them well and were committed to supporting them safely and respectfully. The service demonstrated positive outcomes for people, and staff promoted people’s independence and wellbeing. People and relatives told us they felt supported and had confidence in the staff caring for them. People told us about warm, compassionate interactions and a focus on supporting people to lead meaningful lives.
The service demonstrated a commitment to the principles of Right support, right care, right culture by promoting people’s independence, protecting their rights and enabling them to lead meaningful, inclusive lives. Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that maximised choice, control and autonomy. People were encouraged to participate in their communities and maintain relationships that mattered to them.
However, although the quality of day-to-day care was good, some shortfalls in record keeping and care planning meant the provider could not always demonstrate that people consistently received care in line with legal requirements and best practice. Where people may have lacked capacity to make certain decisions, the available documentation did not always show that decisions had been made or reviewed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records did not consistently identify the decision in question, the assessment of capacity, or evidence that decisions were made in the person’s best interests.
We also found that guidance for staff on the use of “as required” (PRN) medicines required improvement. There were no protocols detailing when PRN medicines should be offered, the symptoms staff should look for, and any nonmedicinal strategies to try first. This increased the risk of medicines being used inconsistently.
Care plans were generally informative but could be strengthened by including more individualised and person-centred detail. Some plans did not fully reflect people’s preferences, communication needs or what mattered most to them, meaning staff did not always have clear guidance on how to deliver highly personalised support. Where there were barriers to people understanding written care plans, there was no evidence that information had been provided in a format that was accessible to people.
Despite these issues, the service remained Good because staff practice, people’s experiences, and the culture of the service were positive. The provider was responsive during the assessment and began taking steps to address the concerns raised. Continued improvement in record keeping, PRN guidance and person-centred planning will help ensure the service can fully evidence the good care being delivered.