Updated 8 September 2026
Date of assessment: 09 to 22 September 2026.
Clifton House provides accommodation for a maximum of 6 people with a learning disability and/or autistic people requiring personal care. There were 3 people living at the home when we visited.
This was a focused assessment following concerns identified at a previous assessment, published 16 May 2025.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee 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, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
We saw aspects of ‘Right support, right care and right culture’ guidance were delivered by the service. For example, we observed the model and culture of care and size and layout of the service promoted people being able to exercise choice, control and independence in how they chose to live their lives. This was supported by our observations, reflected in the feedback we received from people and staff, and supported by people’s care records.
The service was also well-located in a community with easy-to-access amenities, people went out and about into the local area and socialised with local residents regularly.
A safeguarding policy was in place, which staff understood. People, relatives and staff were clear on how they could report concerns should they have any, and these would be taken seriously and acted on by the provider.
Care plans and risk assessments were clear, person-centred and detailed, and staff were knowledgeable of people’s needs. People interacted positively with staff, who treated them with kindness and understanding and sought to provide person-centred care which promoted people’s choice, control and independence.
People’s and relatives’ views on the care people received were encouraged on a regular basis, and these views were acted on.
Safety events were reviewed and analysed by leaders and discussed within staff meetings to support understanding and learning. They were also reported to external partners, when required.
Staff had a good awareness of people’s needs, which they demonstrated in how they supported people. People had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), where these were required, and staff were Mental Capacity Act (MCA) trained and sought the consent of people when providing them care. We found where people were judged as lacking mental capacity to be able to consent to their care arrangements, the provider had not always carried out mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions regarding key aspects of their care.
Staff received robust inductions, training that was relevant to people’s needs and regular supervisions. Staff were positive about the support they received from leaders.
Governance arrangements were largely clear and effective, and leaders were clear about their oversight of the service.