During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
The service is a care home which also provides nursing care. There are 2 floors with communal areas on the ground floor and individual bedrooms are located on each floor. There were 13 people using the service at the time of the assessment.
Who the service is for
This service provides a rehabilitation and recovery service for adults with complex and enduring mental health needs.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 15 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.
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 and sought people’s consent before providing care and support. However, improvements were required to ensure people’s mental capacity to make specific decisions were clearly recorded. 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.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and knew how to recognise and report concerns. Learning from incidents was shared with staff through debriefs and regular discussions to promote safe practice. One staff member told us, "If something has happened it will get passed to us. If there is an incident there will also be a debrief."
There were enough suitably skilled staff to meet people's needs. Staff had been safely recruited. The environment was safe and suitable for people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely. Stock balances matched medicines administration records (MAR) and there were effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of medicines management.
People’s needs were assessed before they came to the service. People visited the home before they moved in. One staff member told us “[Person’s name] came in with her sister and they came to view and stayed for a while. They increase their visits before they move in. By that time their care plan and assessments have been put in the system for us to have an idea on the resident. If staff lack any training in relation to that resident, we then raise this with management.”
People had access to specialist support, including regular input from an occupational therapist and psychologist. The service had a clear rehabilitative ethos and supported people to work towards greater independence. Staff understood people's individual goals and how to support people to achieve them. One staff member told us, "Trinity Court is a rehab [service], the goals are set from the first day they come in here. We have to measure the goals continuously to see if we are on track."
We observed staff supporting people to develop and maintain their independence. Staff encouraged people to use the kitchen to prepare hot drinks and take part in cooking and baking. Staff were compassionate in how they described people and knew people well. One staff member said, “When I’m supporting [person], they like me to tell them jokes. I’m supporting them to wash, but trying to be funny at the same time. People know who they like to support them.”
Staff understood people’s needs well and knew their life histories and experiences. People were involved in reviews of their care and support and had opportunities to contribute to decisions about how their needs were met. Information about people’s protected characteristics were included in their care plans and staff were aware of people’s diverse needs and considered these when providing support.
During the inspection, we observed people went out shopping and to attend appointments, supporting progress towards their goals and independence. People were encouraged to give feedback about the service and where suggestions about activities had been made, the outcome of these suggestions was displayed so people could see the outcome of their suggestions. There was a system in place for the management of complaints and any learning from complaints was shared with staff and used to improve the service.
Staff spoke positively about the leadership of the service and described the registered manager as approachable and supportive. One staff member said, "[Registered manager] is 1 of the best managers, they are approachable, you can contact them anytime. I feel supported." There was a respectful culture within the staff team and staff we spoke with were clear about the aims of the service and felt the culture was positive. One staff member commented, “It's how you come across. That caring is within me. You have time to spend with people who need assistance. Good staff, we all work well together.”
Governance systems were effective. Regular audits identified areas for improvement, and actions were taken to address issues.