Parry House

Who the service is for

Parry House provides personal care and support for up to 8 people with health needs, learning disabilities and autistic people. We have 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. We found people were supported in accordance with this guidance.

The accommodation was provided within a two-storey dwelling which was located with other homes close by, lived in by people with care and support needs. The provider ensured people were supported to access communities beyond the location and recognised the importance of people having access to a variety of people, facilities and opportunities. For example, cycling, garden centres, cafes, swimming, outings and holidays. This had enabled an open culture to develop where people were less likely to be at risk of deliberate or unintentional harm. The model of care supported people to be as independent as they were able to be.

People living in the home had access to outdoor and indoor communal areas and had their own personalised bedrooms. This supported a familiar and comfortable environment, allowing staff to adapt their approach to people’s individual needs and preferences. The home was located next door to an activity centre called the Reilly Rooms, which provided people with opportunities to take part in activities including arts and crafts, baking and puzzles.

Key findings
We carried out this assessment from 8 October 2026 to 21 October 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.

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. Staff confirmed they received DoLs training and told us they supported people in their “best interests” and in the “least restrictive” manner.

Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were recorded and monitored, enabling the provider to identify themes and trends and take action to keep people safe from abuse. Risks to people were assessed, including those associated with their health conditions, to ensure appropriate support was provided. The environment was clean, well maintained and free from hazards, with appropriate safety checks completed. Equipment was serviced. Safe recruitment practices were followed. Staff received training to equip them with the skills and knowledge needed to provide safe, effective and personalised support, including training in safeguarding, autism and learning disability. Medicines were administered as prescribed.

People’s care records were reviewed regularly and contained assessments covering areas such as personal care, mobility, nutrition and hydration. People had access to external healthcare professionals, including GPs, physiotherapists, and speech and language therapists. Guidance from healthcare professionals was recorded within care records to support staff in meeting people’s needs safely. The provider monitored people’s healthcare needs and worked collaboratively with relevant healthcare professionals. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent before providing support. Staff we observed asked for people’s consent before assisting them to move and administering medicines.

Staff we observed interacted with people in a friendly and engaging manner, showing a genuine interest in them and spending meaningful time together. Staff told us they encouraged people to be as independent as possible and offered choice. For example, supporting people to choose their meals, clothes, food and which activities they would like to do.

People were supported by staff who responded flexibly to their individual needs and preferences. Staff were available to provide support when required, including at mealtimes, with personal care and when people accessed the local community.

Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. The provider worked with healthcare professionals such as the local learning disability team to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met. People were supported to access the right health and social care services through well-planned and documented care. Staff told us they made reasonable adjustments based on people’s needs, including providing access to hoists and adapted transport so people could take part in community activities such as swimming. Staff told us they planned in advance for people’s holidays, arranging necessary equipment to minimise barriers to their participation.

Assessments and care records identified people's individual needs, for example, communication, and health needs, which enabled staff to provide care which reflected individual preferences.

Staff spoke confidently about the people they supported. Staff were able to give examples of how they supported people, for example, providing hand on hand support. Staff told us they had enough information in care records to support people in line with their wishes and preferences.

Staff told us about the provider’s values which included working together respectfully. Staff demonstrated an understanding the care home was first and foremost the people’s home. They respected this by recognising their role was to provide support within people’s own home. The provider had systems and processes to monitor the quality of the service and worked towards improving the service. A service improvement plan was in place to support oversight of the service and staff development. Audits were completed, for example, in relation to, accidents and incidents, health and safety and infection prevention and control.

Feedback received from a stakeholder confirmed the registered manager demonstrated a positive approach to partnership working.