Murach House

Updated 8 January 2026

Date of assessment: 11 – 18 February 2026.

Murach House is registered to provide care and support for up to 6 people. The service provides residential care for adults 18-65, with a learning disability or autism. At the time of this inspection, there were 5 people living at the service.

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 that most people take for granted.

We found the service was meeting this guidance, which meant people were supported in a way which maximised their dignity, choice and access to their local community.

Staff delivered care in line with people’s care plans and risk assessments. These were updated regularly to ensure information for staff on people’s needs was accurate and relevant. Safe medication management systems were in place and people received their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff ensured they followed infection prevention and control practices.

Staff were working to meet individual communication with people and relatives were mainly positive about the communication they received from the service. Staff were aware of the importance of gaining consent when delivering care, and ensuring all care was delivered with dignity and care.

Staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm and abuse. Any accidents or incidents that occurred were learned from to prevent recurrence in the future. Staff felt supported by the management team, felt appreciated and were proud to work for the service. Governance systems were operating effectively, and this included oversight by the provider. We received positive feedback about the registered manager, management team and the provider.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff knew how to raise concerns; they were confident they would be taken seriously. The Service followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people needed to have restrictions in place, to keep them safe, this was done in their best interest. and followed correct legal procedures, known as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

There have been positive outcomes in terms of a reduction in previous restrictive practices needed for the people through improving the quality of support through continuous learning and positive risk taking.

Recruitment processes were safe and there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. There was a comprehensive induction and training programme for staff, including supervisions and career progression. People had access to healthcare as required and the service worked in partnership with them.

Updated 8 January 2026

People at the service did not use verbal communication to provide feedback. Therefore, we spoke to their relatives, observed the care people received and used alternative forms of communication to seek their views.

People received kind and compassionate care. Staff were attentive and their interactions with people were considered and enabling. Staff had good rapport with people, afforded them time and were responsive. Staff knew people well. One member of staff talked passionately about how he had worked as a person’s keyworker to get the right support in place, adopting the least restrictive approach to their support and making them feel comfortable and in control of their private space of their bedroom. They told us, “When the person moved in, they would not allow their mum in their bedroom, recently they have.” The person was proud of their bedroom and wanted to show their mum. This was achieved through person-centred support.

There were meaningful activities available in the service, and we observed that people were fully engaged with these. Staff members were able to explain why certain activities are enjoyed by people, ‘ trampolining meets their sensory needs, they really really enjoy it’ People had experienced positive outcomes in terms of more varied activities, use of public transport and a reduction in restrictive practices, due to staff’s knowledge and skills in supporting them, especially when they were experiencing levels of heightened anxiety.

One relative told us, “Always impressed by the staff. They are really dedicated which is important.” Another relative told us, “The staff are good anddefinitely hegets good support. He is settled and I know he is happy. Idon'thave anything negative.”

People were engaged in household tasks, and this was supported within people’s individual needs.