Archived: East Anglia Domiciliary Care Branch

Updated 5 November 2024

East Anglia Domiciliary Care Branch provides care and support to people, with a learning disability, living in a supported living setting, so they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing were provided under separate contractual agreements, the accommodation was provided by a separate landlord. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. We carried out our assessment between 14 November 2024 and 3 April 2025, when feedback was given. The assessment was carried out following our assessment in May 2024, when a warning notice was issued and in response to concerns about the risks within the service.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with alearning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.’ We found the provider had failed to meet the principles of this.

The governance systems had failed to identify and rectify the widespread and significant concerns found at this assessment. People were not receiving consistently person-centred care to meet their needs in the least restrictive way. This was because there was not enough suitability trained and skilled staff to provide continuity of care. The risks and restrictions to people had not been consistently identified and/or mitigated. Legal consent to care was not always in place, including making decisions in their best interests. There was no effective system in place to manage concerns and complaints, poor incident management including systems for reviewing and learning to improve behaviour support for people.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, person-centred care, dignity and respect, safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, the need for consent, staffing and good governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment and the provider remained in breach of these regulations. We also found the provider was in breach of legal regulations relating to staff recruitment and meeting nutritional needs at this assessment.

In instances where CQC has decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.

Updated 5 November 2024

We received mixed responses from relatives about the care provided to people. The model of care did not maximise people’s choice, control and independence. People’s choice and control of their life varied and they were not encouraged to become independent. Relatives felt some staff found it easier to do things for people rather than encourage them so they could learn. There was a lack of individual choice where people who lived together did things together. Care was not always person-centred and did not promote people’s dignity, privacy and human rights. The provider oversaw care in 15 different supported living settings. People’s experience was not consistent and people living in some schemes had a poor quality of experience. Where there had been lack of leadership, high agency use and/or new staff, feedback was poor as this had impacted on how well staff knew people and meet their needs. In these instances, staff did not always know the best way to communicate with people, understand the way they reacted to certain situations or how to manage risks for them. People did not have a full active life. When there was consistent leadership and a more stable staff force, we received positive feedback about how well the person was cared for and staff knew them. These relatives felt people went out on regular trips and were happy. The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviour of some leaders made relatives feel the service was not always well managed. Some said communication had been poor. They felt if they raised concerns they would not always be listened to and very little would change. There was a lack of asking for feedback and reviews taking place. Others identified there had been improvements in communication in the last 6 months and others felt communication was good.