Valley Road

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.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment between 16 June 2026 and 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 were supported by sufficient staff, who had been safely recruited and who received good levels of support to enable them to provide safe care. Staff told us they felt valued and were encouraged to continue developing their knowledge and skills. This approach was contributing to a sustained reduction in the use of agency staff, helping to promote continuity and stability within the service.

Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities, including how to recognise and report any concerns which may indicate a risk of abuse. Staff were confident senior staff would take prompt action to support people, if required. Leadership at the home were pro-active and transparent in managing safeguarding concerns and communicating these to other agencies, to promote people’s safety.

Regular checks were undertaken on the safety and suitability of the premises. The provider planned to further enhance the environment for people’s continued enjoyment by additional development of the sensory and garden areas and to replace some furniture items.

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. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Staff worked closely with people, relatives and health and social care professionals to develop clear, detailed and person‑centred risk assessments and care plans. These provided guidance to help staff consistently reduce and manage risks, including those linked to people’s anxiety and complex health needs. One staff member said, “You need to make [people] safe, so you discuss risk assessments.”

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff were not allowed to administered people’s medicines until they had received training and their competency to administer them had been checked. Staff were clear about the actions to take if an error occurred, and described a supportive culture in which senior staff encouraged learning from incidents and near misses. We saw staff administering medicines in a safe, person‑centred way which reflected the guidance set out in people’s care plans.

People and relatives had opportunities to visit Valley Road before care began. Staff worked closely with people and relatives before each stay, to understand any changes in needs and ensure the right support was in place.

The service ensured people were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives. People and relatives were at the centre of care planning and review of support; this ensured they received personalised care in line with their preferences and diverse needs. One staff member said although they got to know people’s routines, they still checked. They told us, “You ask [people] what they want to do or wear.” We saw people were asked what they would like to eat and drink.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who communicated with them in ways they preferred. Staff spoke warmly about people and valued the bonds they had built with them. Staff respected and promoted people’s right to dignity and worked at people’s pace. We saw people made their own day to day choices and this was respected by staff. Staff gently encouraged people to do as much as possible, so their independence was promoted.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of what mattered to people and used this knowledge when caring for them, so people received person-centred care. One staff member told us about a person with complex well-being needs and said, “If you find out something new that works, you pass it on.” Systems were in place to manage any concerns and to address them promptly. Staff took action to ensure people were treated fairly and respected their unique needs.

Leaders were described by staff as approachable, visible and supportive. This helped to create a collaborative approach which focused on meeting people’s needs. The registered manager and provider completed checks on the quality and safety of the service. They also took part in provider and network meetings to share learning and bring back best practice to strengthen the service further.