222 Bills Lane

Who the service is for

This service supports adults over the age of 18 with learning disabilities and autism. 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 on 28 September to 09 October 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.

Staff knew people well and were committed to helping them achieve positive outcomes. Staff spoke passionately about the people they supported and how they promoted independence, choice and control. One staff member told us, "If we know things they can do, we will let them do it. We work together and encourage them to be involved," while another said, "I am here to assist you [the person]. I like to get them involved to do as much as they can for themselves." People were supported to access activities and opportunities that reflected their interests and preferences, helping them maintain meaningful lives and connections with their local community.

There was evidence of a positive learning culture and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Staff received regular training, supervision and competency assessments, and were able to describe how they would recognise and respond to concerns. One member of staff told us, "Safeguarding training has really helped me understand how to recognise concerns and what action to take."

People's needs were assessed before moving into the service and reviewed regularly to ensure care remained responsive to changes in need. Care plans reflected what was important to people, and staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals to support good outcomes. Medicines were managed safely, with staff following clear procedures and systems to support safe administration and oversight. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent and involving people in decisions about their care.

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 and had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

There was a positive and supportive culture within the service, with most staff describing strong teamwork and accessible management support. One staff member told us, "The staff as a whole get on really well. We all know each other's strengths," while another said, "I have a great bunch of people working with me and managers have been great at keeping us informed." Governance systems, audits and oversight arrangements were established, and leaders described a culture focused on listening to people, relatives and staff, using feedback and quality assurance processes to drive improvement.

However, some areas required further development to ensure governance arrangements were fully effective in identifying concerns and providing robust oversight of the service. Risk assessments were not consistently in place to provide staff with the information they needed to support people safely, and some gaps in training relating to people's specific needs had not been identified through existing oversight processes. Whilst the provider had identified some environmental maintenance concerns and was progressing actions, including an imminent large scale refurbishment plan, other concerns identified during the inspection, such as boxes stored within the carport which presented a potential fire risk, had not been identified through governance systems. The provider was responsive to feedback, taking immediate action where concerns were highlighted and demonstrating a commitment to improvement.