Lee Valley Care Services Limited

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 28 July 2026 (assessment visit 11 May 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

   This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

   The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. This was because people’s care plans and risk assessments did not always consistently provide the level of detail required to support people safely. Medicines were not always managed safety. The provider also did not have effective arrangements to manage risks associated with infection prevention and control.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

   At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

   This meant people’s outcomes were good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

   At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

   This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

   At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

   This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

5. Well-led

   –No rating No rating

   Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

   At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

   This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

   The service was in breach of a legal regulation in relation to good governance. The provider did not have effective governance and quality assurance systems to monitor, assess and the improve the quality of the service.