SENSE - 138 Bradford Road

We carried out this assessment on 8 August 2026 as part of our approach to returning to services rated good, to confirm whether the service’s previous rating remained accurate. The rating remained good. This report does not provide detailed information where practice continued to meet a good standard. Instead, it focuses on any areas requiring improvement or where we found exceptional practice.

The service had a manager registered with CQC. This meant the registered manager and the provider were legally responsible for how the service was run and for the quality and safety of care provided.

We assessed the service against Right support, right care, right culture guidance to make judgements about whether the provider supported autistic people and people with a learning disability with respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and access to local communities.

We found people received personalised support that promoted choice, control, independence and inclusion.

People continued to receive good-quality care and support. Risks were assessed and managed in ways that enabled people to remain safe while doing the things that mattered to them.

There were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment checks were completed. There was oversight of staff training and action was taken where further training was required. Medicines were managed safely, and audits supported oversight of the service. There were no safeguarding concerns at the service.

The provider had an environmental action plan that detailed ongoing works and planned completion dates. The provider had considered the impact on people and made arrangements to minimise disruption. This included supporting one person to take a planned holiday while the works were completed.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this is through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which form part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found the service worked within the principles of the Act. Relevant authorisations had been sought and monitored, and decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were recorded.