During an assessment under our new approach
Dates of assessment: 5 to 11 December 2025.
44 Albion Road is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 7 people. At the time of our assessment there were 7 people living at the service. People using this service have a learning disability and/or autism.
We undertook this unannounced focused on-site assessment in response to concerns shared with us about the safety and compatibility of people living at the service. We looked at 21 quality statements within the key questions of safe, effective and well-led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at their last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
People did not always receive the right support. People’s needs and the risks to their health and well-being were assessed. However, the provider did not always assess the potential service-wide impact when people moved into the service. This resulted in an incompatible mix of people living in the service. The provider recognised this and was developing plans to support people to move to more suitable homes at the time of our assessment. In the meantime, staff continued to support people to be active and promoted their independence and choices.
The provider ensured there were enough staff available to keep people safe. The provider followed robust recruitment processes to confirm that staff were safe and suitable to provide care and support. Staff were skilled and knowledgeable and received the training they required to meet people’s needs. Staff were supervised and appraised by leaders. They were encouraged to share their views in meetings about improving the service.
People did not always receive the right care. The provider failed to consult with people, relatives or staff before supporting people to move into the service. The incompatible mix of people meant that person-centred care was not always possible because people did not always feel safe and free to implement choices and decisions.
Timely and appropriate referrals were made to healthcare professionals when people required them. Input from professionals was reflected in people’s care plans, and their guidance was followed by staff.
The provider did not always promote the right culture. At the time of our assessment the provider was attempting to address the significant discord which had occurred within the staff team and was developing a programme of team building.
People did not always have a good experience. For example, people experienced disruption to their daily routines as the result of an incompatible mix of people arising from a misjudged placement. A relative described the result as people being “not compatible in any way.” People who became anxious when exposed to loud noises found themselves distressed because this had happened repeatedly. People who preferred to receive their support in services for individual people found communal living difficult. This meant the provider had not matched people with compatible peers. The provider recognised this shortfall and was taking action with partner-agencies to address this issue.
The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person-centred care and the governance of the service. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.