Seymour Gardens

Who the service is for

This service supports people with learning disabilities and autistic people with their personal care needs.

Key Findings (Summary)

We carried out this assessment on 16 September 2026 and 25 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.

As part of our assessment methodology for services who may support people with a learning disability and autistic people, we assess if services are meeting the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture (RSRCRC) statutory guidance. This includes: Right support: Model of care and setting maximises people's choice, control and independence. Right care: Care is person-centred and promotes people's dignity, privacy and human rights. Right culture: Ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensure people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives.

The provider followed these principles of supporting people to live ordinary lives within their local community. People had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

At the time of our assessment, the provider informed us of a proposal to close the service and move people to another service within the organisation. People and their relatives had been informed about the proposed changes. Planning was underway with people’s respective local authorities, who were responsible for the funding of their placement, for the move to a new home. People told us they were looking forward to moving and were being supported to visit and get to know staff at their proposed new home.

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.

People received safe care and support from staff they had developed positive relationships with. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s needs, communication, health conditions, emotional wellbeing and social activities. Risks relating to areas such as choking, nutrition, fluid intake, mobility and visual impairments had been assessed. People were supported to access healthcare professionals, including GPs, dentists, opticians and specialist services. Referrals had been made where required, including for physiotherapy, falls prevention and swallowing assessments.

Staff supported people to maintain their independence and make choices about their clothing, food, drinks and activities. People accessed day services, community activities and maintained contact with family members. Medicines were managed through medicine administration records (MAR), monitoring records and protocols for PRN (‘as required’) medicines, with regular audits completed. We found an instance of staff not following the process for medicine recording errors, but this was explained and resolved by the management and staff team. Staff received training, supervision and support to carry out their roles safely. Recruitment, induction and probation processes were in place.

The registered manager completed audits and checks to monitor the quality of the service, including on health and safety. Staff meetings were used to learn lessons, share information and promote continuous oversight. We observed a caring culture where people’s wellbeing, dignity and individual needs were understood and respected. The provider had established plans to support people and staff through the proposed service closure and move to alternative accommodation.

However, the home environment looked tired with visible signs of wear and tear. The registered manager acknowledged this and told us this was due to constraints as they did not own the property. Despite these concerns, there was a safe, caring and supportive culture. Staff described leaders as approachable and felt listened to, respected and supported.