- Homecare service
Archived: 58 Acton Lane
Assessment report published 23 June 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 15 April 2025. 58 Acton Lane provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. The service is registered to provide regulated activity for up to 6 adults. At the time of this assessment there were 4 people residing at the service.
This assessment was prompted by a review of information we received about the service.
The service was rated good overall at their last assessment in April 2019, however the rating for this assessment has changed to requires improvement.
The team who conducted the inspection consisted of a lead inspector and regulatory coordinator.
We looked at 19 quality statements associated with the key questions. Is the service Safe? We looked at 8 quality statements. Is the service effective, we looked at 2 quality statements. Is the service Well-led, we looked at 7 quality statements We also looked at 1 quality statement under the key questions, Is the service caring and responsive. [LB1]
An assessment has been undertaken of a service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability but is not registered as a specialist service. 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.
Right Support - Staff ensured they communicated and shared information with people in a way they could easily understand and always respected the informed choices they made. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. However, people were placed at risk of harm because medicines were not always managed safely in line with best practice. Governance systems and audits were not always in place and were not always effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement. Feedback from external audits was not always listened to and acted upon.
Right Care - Staff followed current best practice guidelines regarding infection prevention and control. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. Staff spoke positively about the people they supported. However, the facilities and equipment were not always safe. Staffing levels was not always sufficient to meet people’s individual needs as indicated in care plans. Care plans and risk assessments were not always accessible to staff.
Right culture - The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. However, the service has been without a registered manager for over 3 years which has contributed to a lack of structural clarity within management, and the oversight of daily operations lacked defined roles.
We found 3 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance.
People's experience of this service
Relatives told us, “The staff are caring and they put clients first,” and that the staff team “are very supportive.” Relatives told us people felt safe in the presence of staff and the other people living at the service.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity and were treated as individuals, with their diverse needs respected. Relatives told us the service is “always tidy and clean.” Relatives told us they would not hesitate to speak to staff or the interim manager if they had concerns with the care and support being delivered.
Residents we spoke with said the service was “good” and were happy with the care and support they received from staff. However, peoples experience did not completely reflect the quality of care being given.