Tova

Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for people with a physical disability, learning disability 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 single storey dwelling which was located on a village style development with other homes lived in by people with care and support needs, which is a campus setting. However, 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, bowling, visiting shops in the local community, a garden centre, outings including visiting the zoo, pantomime and going on holiday. This reduced risks of a closed culture. The model of care supported people to be independent as they were able to be.

People living in the home had access to communal areas and had their own bedrooms. This helped create a familiar home environment where staff were able to provide support to people in a more personal and flexible way. There were communal gardens around the building, which were accessible for people. There were various amenities on-site including a pool, trampoline, stables, and a café.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment from 30 July 2026 to 17 August 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.

Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were recorded and monitored which helped to identify any themes or trends and to safeguard people from abuse. People’s risks were assessed to ensure they were supported with their health conditions. The environment was clean, well maintained, and free from hazards, with appropriate safety checks completed. Equipment was in good working order. People were supported by safely recruited staff. Staff completed a range of training to provide them with the skills and knowledge to provide tailored and effective support. Staff told us they received training which included safeguarding, medicines, autism, learning disability, moving and handling and skin integrity. Medicines were administered as prescribed.

People’s care records were regularly reviewed, and assessments considered a range of needs, including personal care, falls and moving safely. People’s care records included external professional guidance for staff to safely support them, such as, guidance from speech and language therapists. People’s healthcare needs were monitored as the service worked in partnership with other external healthcare professionals such as GPs. Staff told us they asked for consent when supporting people. For example, staff told us consent was requested when “administering medicines”. Staff were observed asking for consent when supporting people to move.

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 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. 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 were aware of DoLs and told us they received training. Staff told us where decisions were needed, they were made in the “best interests” of people and in the “least restrictive” manner.

Staff were observed to be friendly and genuinely interested in people and enjoyed spending time with them.

Staff were observed delivering care in a flexible and responsive way. People were supported by staff who ensured they were constantly available for people. For example, when supporting at mealtimes, personal care and taking them swimming.

The provider recorded complaints and compliments. Staff used communication aids, such as pictures and objects, to communicate with people. People were supported by staff who knew them well. For example, staff told us they supported people by “watching for signs of distress, noticing changes in behaviour and assuming capacity”. People were supported by staff who told us care records guided them on how to support people in line with their wishes.

Staff told us about the provider’s vision embracing kindness, empowerment, respect and belonging. The provider had systems and processes to monitor the quality of the service and worked towards improving the service. The provider had a service improvement plan to support oversight of the service. Audits were completed, for example, in relation to, health and safety, medicines and infection prevention and control.