During an assessment under our new approach
Our view of the service
About the service
The service is a care home. The service had recently increased the amount of people it can support from 5 people to 10 people. There were 7 people using the service at the time of the assessment.
Who the service is for
This service supports adults with mental health conditions. Some adults were also autistic or had a learning disability.
The service is a community transition service where people are supported to develop their skills to work towards living independently in the community.
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.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 26 and 28 August 2026 and 01 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
The service demonstrated a positive culture of learning, openness, and continuous improvement. The management team were supportive and approachable. Staff communicated effectively, they used handovers and team meetings to share information, reflect on practice, and support positive outcomes for people.
There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. No one at the service currently required a DoLS authorisation. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives in the least restrictive way.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. There was a clear staff structure, and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff received training relevant to their roles and they needs of the people they supported. Medicines were administered safely. People had support to attend health appointments and activities such as college, walks and shopping where they wanted.
People’s care plans contained personalised information and were regularly reviewed with people to ensure they reflected their needs. Risk assessments promoted positive risk taking and independence. Staff respected people's confidentiality and sought consent before providing any support.
A caring and inclusive culture was evident throughout the service. The provider’s vision was shared across the staff group. This focused on supporting people in a person centred way to build confidence, develop skills and independence. People received personalised care from a dedicated staff team who were committed to supporting them to live their life in the way they wanted and to achieve their chosen outcomes. One staff member said, “Our goal is to promote independence, for residents to flourish and live as independently and safely as they can.” A health and social care professional said of 1 person, “They have grown their independence so much with the support of staff.”
Feedback was regularly sought and used to improve the quality of care provided. Complaints were investigated. Quality assurance and governance systems were in place to monitor the quality safety and effectiveness of the service. These processes supported continuous learning and identified areas for improvement.
The environment was clean, welcoming and homely. People had personalised bedrooms, and communal areas were well maintained. Appropriate safety checks were generally completed. However, we identified 2 staff members had not taken part in a fire evacuation in the last 12 months. This was important as staff lone worked in the service during the night and may need to support people to evacuate safely in the event if a fire. These staff had completed fire training. We fed this back to the registered manager, who told us this would be actioned.