Ribston House

We carried out this assessment on 16 September and 17 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.

We assessed the service in line with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to determine whether people with a learning disability and autistic people were supported with respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence, and good access to their local communities that most people take for granted.

People were supported to access the community regularly and had unrestricted access to a secure garden area which was wheelchair accessible.

People were kept safe. There were enough suitably skilled and trained staff to meet their needs. Staff understood safeguarding and felt able to raise concerns. One staff member said, “I've never had to report anything to do with safeguarding. If I did find or observe something I would follow our whistleblowing procedure, inform the manager or call the police.” A professional told us they had not had any concerns about people’s safety and communication with the service was good. Incidents and feedback were used to support learning, and the environment and equipment supported people’s safety and wellbeing.

People’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs were assessed, and staff supported them in line with their individual needs. Staff could describe the positive outcomes people achieved.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, understood their preferences, and supported them to make choices and have control over their daily lives. A professional told us how a person’s wishes, feelings and choices were always respected.

People received personalised care which reflected their diverse needs and communication preferences. They were supported to maintain important relationships, access community opportunities which promoted inclusion and wellbeing, and shared feedback about their support. A professional told us the provider worked collaboratively with them, completed required follow-up actions and worked with them to meet one person’s complex and changing needs, promoting their health, wellbeing and engagement.

The registered manager was visible, had positive relationships with people and staff, and promoted an open culture where staff contributed ideas to improve service delivery and the support people received. One staff member said, “I really like the managers, I get on with the deputy manager as we both started at the same time. The manager puts up notes around the office which I find useful. I get regular supervisions. Everything is good here.”

A professional told us the registered manager was collaborative, took feedback on board and asked for advice when needed, adding, “The registered manager normally answers the phone or a team leader, and they always reply promptly if I need to report something. I visit a lot of services, and this is the best one. I am respected here for what I do, if I find an issue (health related) and I raise it I can see this is dealt with.”

Medicines were managed safely overall, although some records and diabetes risk assessments needed greater clarity and consistency. Care plans and risk assessments did not always clearly demonstrate how people had been involved in identifying and managing risks or provide staff with consistent guidance. However, the immediate risk was mitigated because staff knew people well and could describe how to support them safely, and relatives confirmed staff understood their family members’ individual needs. The provider was receptive to our feedback and had begun addressing some of these shortfalls.

Governance systems had not identified areas for improvement such as ensuring care plans were accessible, fire evacuation records for people were accurate and where we found minor environmental concerns. However, steps were being taken to address these.

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. 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.