- Care home
The Bungalow
Assessment report published 24 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
The Bungalow is a care home for up to 5 people. Four people lived at the home at the time of our assessment.
Who the service is for
The service supports people who have a learning disability and/or autism.
Our view of the service.
We carried out this assessment on 18 June and 22 June 2026.
This service was previously rated 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.
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. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Leaders and staff advocated for people’s rights and ensured they had equitable access to healthcare. When a healthcare professional completed a ReSPECT form that would have limited a person’s access to further healthcare treatment, the service identified that the person lacked capacity to participate in the decision and that those who knew them well had not been consulted. The registered manager challenged the decision, promoting the person’s right to appropriate healthcare and ensuring the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were upheld. This helped safeguard the person’s best interests and support equal access to the healthcare services they may require.
There were always enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and had access to the induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles. Staff received safeguarding training and knew how to report any concerns they had about abuse or poor practice.
Staff kept people safe while enabling positive risk-taking, supporting them to achieve meaningful outcomes and maximise their independence. People lived in a safe, clean environment. Staff carried out regular health and safety checks to ensure the home and equipment were safe and appropriately maintained. People’s medicines were managed safely.
Staff kept people’s needs under review, including their health, emotional, and communication needs. We heard examples of staff advocating on behalf of people where necessary to ensure their legal rights were upheld.
The service was led by an experienced registered manager and deputy manager who provided good leadership and direction. Relatives told us the registered manager and deputy manager were approachable and responsive to feedback. A relative said, “They are professional and they listen.”
People's experience of this service
We spoke with the people who lived at the home and observed the engagement they had with staff to understand their experiences of care and support. We received feedback from 3 people’s relatives about their family members’ care.
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 supported people to make meaningful choices about how they spent their time and respected their decisions about their care and support. All the people who lived at the home enjoyed an annual holiday and had access to a mobility vehicle to maximise their independence in accessing the community and activities they enjoyed.
People were encouraged to be involved in the daily life of the home. For example, people were involved in planting and maintaining the garden, supporting them to enjoy meaningful engagement in their environment. One person produced a monthly newsletter for the home which was distributed to people’s families.
People were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and families. Relatives told us they were made welcome when they visited the home. One relative said of staff, “They take good care of [family member] and they are always polite and welcoming to us.” People’s religious and cultural needs were met. A relative told us, “They take [family member] to church; he is a believer and they support him with that.”
People were encouraged to be involved in the recruitment of staff, either by taking part in interviews or meeting prospective staff before they were appointed. The provider had developed an inclusive recruitment toolkit to support people who used its services to be involved in recruitment.
People were involved in monitoring the quality of the service. One person carried out monthly quality checks which monitored safety, choice, dignity, and people’s involvement in planning their own care.
Relatives told us staff monitored their family members’ health and wellbeing and took a proactive approach to ensure the best outcomes for people. A relative said, “They monitor [family member’s] health. They noticed a particular medication was always making him sleep. They reported it to the doctor and it was adjusted.”
Relatives told us their family members enjoyed living at the home and said staff were kind and caring. A relative told us, “[Family member] is very happy there; it meets his needs. The staff are lovely.” Another relative said of staff, “They have a genuine care for [family member].”
We observed that staff treated people with kindness and dignity during our visits. Staff engaged with people in a warm and friendly manner, while maintaining a professional approach. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs, which enabled them to offer meaningful choice and to respond to people’s needs and wishes.