- Care home
The Bakery
Assessment report published 20 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The Bakery is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 6 people with a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder. Some people using the service had profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD), with associated communication, sensory, physical and health support needs. Not everyone using the service lived at The Bakery on a permanent basis. Some people attend the service for respite care. The Bakery also provided a domiciliary care service supporting people in their own homes. We inspected both the residential service as well as the domiciliary care service. This report is for the residential service. A separate report is available for the domiciliary care 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.
At the time of the inspection, 4 people lived at the service on a permanent basis. In addition, 2 people were staying at the service for overnight respite care and 1 person was attending the service for day respite. Records showed people living at the service had been consulted about others accessing the service for respite care and had expressed positive views about this. Documentation also indicated that most people were already familiar with one another through previously attending day services together. However, people's responses to visitors could vary depending on the circumstances, and staff were aware of the need to provide reassurance and support where required.
The inspection commenced on 27 August 2026 with a site visit. During the visit, one person became distressed by the presence of unfamiliar visitors in their home. To minimise any impact on their wellbeing, we limited our on-site inspection activity to one day and spent most of our time away from the individual concerned. After the visit, we reviewed a number of records remotely. We also engaged with people's relatives and obtained feedback from stakeholders to help inform our assessment of the quality of care provided by the service.
Governance systems were used to monitor the quality of support. Regular audits of support planning and risk management helped identify issues, so that action could be taken to drive improvement. Due to recent management changes within the service, staff were unable to provide detailed feedback on leadership and management arrangements, as these changes were still new and had not been in place long enough for staff to fully assess their impact. Some staff however confirmed they had seen improvements in governance and oversight arrangements, following recent leadership changes.
The service had experienced a number of management changes over recent months. At the time of the inspection, a registered manager from another of the provider's services had recently registered as manager of The Bakery while continuing to manage their existing service. A deputy manager had also recently been appointed and told us they would be based permanently at the service to provide day-to-day leadership and support for staff. The additional management presence was intended to provide staff with greater support and visibility from leaders, helping to improve staff morale and strengthen the culture within the service whilst maintaining good outcomes for people.
People remained at the centre of their support, with staff working alongside them to develop personalised plans and view challenges as opportunities for learning and personal growth. Effective systems were in place to drive continuous improvement and achieve positive outcomes.
Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s social, emotional and relationship needs, actively involving them and their representatives in decisions about their care and support. Support arrangements were reviewed and adapted promptly when needs changed, ensuring a responsive and person-centred approach.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, with their privacy, safety and wellbeing consistently promoted. Health needs were monitored closely, and support plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained relevant and effective. Care was delivered in the least restrictive manner and in accordance with legal requirements, supported by robust safeguarding processes.
Medicines were managed safely, and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and appropriately recruited staff to meet people’s needs. Infection prevention and control measures were followed effectively. Staff worked collaboratively with health and social care professionals and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s rights. Staff confirmed they received ongoing training to maintain current knowledge and best practice, and competency checks were undertaken to ensure learning was embedded and effective.
The provider encouraged openness and honesty where people and staff felt able to speak up about concerns and give feedback. Concerns were taken seriously and addressed properly, helping the service learn and make ongoing improvements.
People's experience of this service
Some people using the service were unable or chose not to share their experiences verbally. We gathered information about people’s experiences through observation and feedback from their relatives. Staff demonstrated strong communication and engagement skills, using personalised approaches such as careful observation, an understanding of each person’s preferred communication methods, and consistent, reassuring interactions to gain insight into what was important to them. People were supported to take part in a wide range of meaningful, person-centred activities, both within the home and in the wider community. We observed people actively participating in activities that reflected their individual interests, preferences, and abilities. Staff interactions were warm, respectful, and responsive, promoting people’s dignity, independence, and positive risk-taking in everyday life.
Care planning and daily practice were flexible and responsive, enabling timely adjustments when support needs changed. This helped people maintain important routines, relationships, and opportunities for meaningful community involvement. A range of easy read information was available to support people’s understanding and involvement in decision-making. Easy read materials used clear language, short sentences, and visual images to help make information more accessible.
Relatives were supported to maintain meaningful relationships with their family members and to remain involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. Feedback from relatives was positive, reporting they felt comfortable raising concerns or sharing feedback with leaders and were confident that any issues would be listened to and acted upon appropriately.
While no concerns were raised about the quality of care provided, some relatives expressed uncertainty regarding recent management and staffing changes. Relatives told us they had received varying information about these changes, which had led to some anxiety about the potential impact on the service. The provider had taken steps to reassure relatives that care delivery and outcomes for people had not been affected. However, this feedback identified an opportunity for the provider to strengthen communication during periods of organisational change to provide timely reassurance and maintain confidence in the service.
Overall, feedback from relatives was positive. Many were satisfied with the care provided, with some expressing particularly high levels of satisfaction. Relatives frequently described care as safe, person-centred and delivered by caring staff, and many told us their family members experienced a good quality of life. While a small number of concerns were raised, these were not representative of the views expressed by most people’s relatives.