Apple House

Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for people with a 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

Our view of the service

We carried out this assessment on8 and 9 June 2026.This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of goodremainsaccurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we foundpractice 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 enough safely recruited staff, who had the skills and knowledge to provide effective support. Staff consistently spoke positively about training and support available to them.For example,some staff hadtraining champion roles and providedteam memberswith regular learning sessions.One staff member told us,“The training isvery good.I am thedesignated autism trainer, Itrain the staff on what is autism, then focus on[person]and[their]communication needs.”

Medicines were managed safely, with robust systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm through effective safeguarding processes and staff awareness of their responsibilities. Staff told us they felt confident in recognising and reporting concerns and were assuredany issues raised would be taken seriously and acted upon promptly.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment withappropriate legalauthority. 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 foundstaff and managersworked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice,controland freedom over their lives.

People's needs were thoroughly assessed before they moved into the service to ensure their care and support could be provided safely and effectively. Care was delivered in line with current legislation, best practice guidance, and evidence-based approaches to achieve positive outcomes for people. Staff worked with people toidentifytheir goals and aspirations, and care plans reflected these individual preferences and needs.There was afocus on positive risk taking to increase people’s independence, skills development, social and leisure links.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who treated them with kindness, dignity, and respect. Staff promoted choice inways peoplecould understand, enabling them to make informed decisions about their care and support. Interactions were warm, person-centred, and reflected a good understanding of each person's individual needs and preferences. Staff consistently encouraged and supported people tomaintainand develop their independence, helping them to live fulfilling lives in line with their wishes and goals.A staff member told us, “I enjoy the fact the [providers] are fully invested in the wellbeing and quality of life for the residents. Plus, the guys are great characters, and I always have time to have a laugh with them.”

Regular audits, checks, and reviews enabledtheregistered managertoidentifyareas for improvement and taketimelyaction whererequired. There was clear provider oversight,with senior leadersmaintaininggood visibility of the service and providingappropriate supportto drive continuous improvement. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported to deliver high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider’s vision was shared across the staff group, this focused on person centred care, choice,independenceand inclusion.The registered manager told us,“We havecreated a homely environment, a family atmosphere. The residents call themselves the‘AppleHouse family’.We ensure the residents are well lookedafter,withperson centred care, meeting their goals and wishes.We create a caring and warm environment to livein where independence is a realbig thing, we encourage[people]to keep their independence and go out into the community.”

Managers and staff shared examples of how people were supported to be involved in developing the quality of the service. The registered manager and their team fostered an open culture where everyone’s thoughts and feelings were considered. The management team were supportive and approachable, and promoted a collaborative approach to continually learning and improving the service. Professionals were consistently positive about the service, and one told us,“Information sharing has been positive and completedin a timely manner……I did see some great outcomes for people whilst there in April and feedback for improvement was welcomed by the management team.”