Acorn Close

Key findings

We carried out this assessment from 16 June to 18 June 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.

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.

Medicines were managed safely. People told us they received their medicines on time and records supported this. The medicines room was clean, tidy and well organised. Staff knew what action to take if medicine stock was running low or if a medicine error occurred. Protocols were in place for medicines prescribed to be taken ‘as required’, and the registered manager monitored their effectiveness. We identified one issue relating to lansoprazole and metformin which required review because of the prescribing instructions indicating the medicines needed to be given in a specific way, and the registered manager agreed to address this. The registered manager understood Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability and Autistic People (STOMP). Medicines were reviewed regularly, and the registered manager had actively worked to reduce the number of occasions people required their prescribed psychotropic medicines by making environmental improvements, increasing communication across the service, and supporting people to access more activities.

People’s health needs were monitored and escalated appropriately. Records showed staff contacted GPs and other health professionals when needed. Staff knew people well and could identify changes in their health and wellbeing. Staff understood when monitoring forms would be required such as fluid balance charts and charts to monitor a person’s distressed behaviour. One person told us, “Staff support me with [health needs]. They can identify the signs of [infection] in me before I do sometimes – they are really good.”

People were supported by safely recruited staff. Recruitment records included Disclosure and Barring Service checks, references, completed application forms, and checks relating to employment gaps and changes of name where applicable.

Staff received training and support to carry out their roles effectively. Staff spoke positively about the quality and availability of training. One staff member told us, “If I ever said to the registered manager I was struggling with something, they would say to me ‘I will get you training on that’.” Staff were assessed for their competency following certain training courses to ensure the learning had been understood and was being implemented safely. Staff also spoke positively about autism training, including the autism bus, which helped them better understand people’s experiences.

Staff understood how to safeguard people. They knew what concerns to report and who to report them to. One staff member told us, “In the first instance, I would go to the registered manager, and then if anything wasn't happening, I would speak to [area manager] and [associate director] and there is also the whistleblowing phone line.” The registered manager understood their role in relation to reporting and sharing safeguarding concerns, should the need arise.

Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s needs, choices and preferences. Where minor areas needed clarification, these were updated promptly. Staff told us care plans were accessible and regularly reviewed. One staff member said, “The care plans are updated every month, and they are always accessible.” People were involved in care planning, and the information they gave us about their care during the inspection matched the information about them within their care plan. Care planning for people included Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) information and where people had experienced distress, staff responded appropriately.

People were supported to have choice and control over their lives. Mental capacity assessments were decision-specific and completed in good detail. Staff understood people’s right to make choices, including decisions others may view as unwise. One staff member told us, “People can make an unwise decision if they have capacity.”

People received personalised care. Bedrooms were highly personalised and reflected people’s interests and preferences. The registered manager told us, “We have personalised a lot of the rooms, someone wanted a double bed, so we sorted that, someone wanted a TV on the wall, so we have done that, someone wanted a bird feeder up – we have done that.”

People were supported to achieve positive outcomes. The registered manager and staff gave examples of people developing independence, attending college, accessing healthcare and experiencing reduced distress. The registered manager told us, “We are building people’s independence.” They described how 1 person had started college twice a week and said, “Their levels of distress have now reduced right down.”

The service had a positive and open culture. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and described improvements in teamwork, communication and morale. One staff member said, “The registered manager is amazing and great. They have completely changed the place, it’s a nice little team, everyone gets on, if there is an issue, the registered manager is straight there.”

The registered manager was visible and approachable. We observed people freely coming in and out of the office and being welcomed warmly. Interactions were relaxed, respectful and person-centred. Staff also described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. One staff member told us, “The thing I love about the registered manager is that they are very approachable.”

Governance systems were effective in identifying areas for improvement. Audits had identified issues and actions had either been completed or were in progress. This improved the quality of care and support. Staff supervisions were taking place regularly, and the registered manager had introduced team-building exercises at meetings to support morale and engagement.

Staff shared a clear vision for the service, focused on independence, choice and quality of life. One staff member told us, “Everyone here is an individual, and I believe that.” Another said, “It feels like we are all going in the same direction.”