Rivelin House

Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for people with a learning disability, and/or autism. The home was based within a community setting and people had their own bedrooms and bathrooms, and shared communal kitchen and lounge areas.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 16 September 2026. This service was previously rated 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.

An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability. 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. The service was meeting the principles of Right support, right care, right culture’.

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.

People were protected from the risk of harm and avoidable risks. Effective systems were in place to monitor incidents, identify trends and share learning across the provider’s services to improve safety and outcomes for people. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities, had received appropriate training and were confident in raising concerns through established whistleblowing procedures. People and relatives consistently told us they felt safe.

Risks to people were well assessed, managed and regularly reviewed. Detailed risk assessments and care plans provided staff with clear guidance to support people safely, including in relation to mobility, nutrition, choking risks and behaviours of concern. Positive behaviour support plans were comprehensive and person-centred. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and competent, and people received medicines as prescribed. The provider also promoted the principles of STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or both) to reduce unnecessary medicines where possible.

People lived in a safe, well-maintained and homely environment. Environmental risks were monitored through regular checks and maintenance, including fire safety and legionella controls. People had personalised evacuation plans in place and staff regularly practised emergency procedures. Sufficient numbers of suitably skilled staff were deployed to meet people’s needs, including one-to-one support where required. Recruitment processes were robust, and staff received training and support to carry out their roles safely and effectively.

People received effective care and support based on comprehensive assessments of their needs and preferences. Assessments involved people, those important to them and relevant professionals. Care records contained detailed information about people’s personal histories, cultural needs, preferences and desired outcomes. Environmental adaptations and specialist assessments were used to promote people’s comfort, independence and safety. Staff delivered care in line with current evidence-based practice and professional guidance. Multidisciplinary working was evident, with advice from healthcare professionals incorporated into care plans and staff guidance. People were supported to access healthcare services and appropriate interventions to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing. Regular health monitoring supported early identification of concerns and helped reduce avoidable hospital admissions.

People received personalised care from staff who understood their individual needs, preferences and aspirations. Care records reflected what was important to people and were reviewed regularly with the involvement of people and those important to them. People were actively involved in decisions about their living environments and personal goals. The service responded well to people's social, emotional and recreational needs. People accessed a wide range of meaningful activities and community opportunities based on their interests and preferences. These included educational opportunities, social events, sporting activities and community involvement. Staff supported people to develop skills, maintain interests and achieve positive outcomes.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share feedback and views about the service. The registered manager promoted an open and inclusive culture, and a variety of methods were available for people to raise concerns, suggestions and ideas. Feedback demonstrated people felt listened to, valued and involved in shaping the service.

The service was led by a management team that promoted a positive, person-centred culture. Clear values focused on delivering safe, tailored and high-quality care within a homely environment. Staff spoke positively about the support they received and described leaders as approachable, responsive and supportive. A staff member told us, “This service is amazing. Staff genuinely care. The staff get on well and are all professional.” Another staff member said, “I am happy here, the staff work well together. The manager is great, approachable and really good with the people we support. People are well looked after and their families are heavily involved in their care.”

Robust governance and quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the service. Regular audits, competency assessments and oversight processes supported continuous monitoring and improvement. People, relatives and staff consistently described the service as well-led. Leaders were committed to learning and continuous improvement. Lessons learned from incidents and feedback were used to drive service developments and improve outcomes for people. An ongoing quality improvement programme was in place, and the provider actively sought feedback from people, relatives and staff through independent channels to inform service development and enhance the quality of care provided.