CTTM Elmfield Cottage

Who the service is for

Elmfield Cottage is a specialist service for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. An unannounced assessment took place to review the quality of care. We assessed the service against Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture to determine whether people with a learning disability and autistic people were supported in ways that promoted dignity, equality, choice, independence and access to their community.

Key findings
We carried out an unannounced visit on the 10 August 2026 and announced on the 03 September 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.
People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well and understood their individual needs and preferences. During the inspection, we observed positive and respectful interactions between staff and people living in the home, as well as positive relationships among people using the service.
Effective recruitment systems were in place to help ensure staff were safely recruited and received an induction when they joined the service. Staff were then supported through a regular programme of training and development, ensuring they maintained the skills and knowledge required to provide safe, effective, and person-centred care. One staff member told us, “The induction is good, there is good support during the induction and good support when working onsite. The team have been really welcoming, and the manager has been supportive”.
Medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice guidance. People's medicines were reviewed in accordance with STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both), an NHS England programme aimed at reducing the inappropriate prescribing of certain high-risk medications for people with learning disabilities and/or autism. One relative told us, “They advocated for a change in [person’s name] medication. This change has made a massive difference and [person’s name] is now happier and more engaged. I hope it continues”.
Clear safeguarding processes were in place, with incidents reported, reviewed, and analysed by the registered manager. This helped promote learning opportunities, and actions to reduce the risk of future occurrences, helping to promote people's safety and wellbeing.
We reviewed people's care plans and found they contained clear and detailed information relating to their health, safety, wellbeing, and support needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained accurate and reflected people's current and individual circumstances, needs, and preferences. During our review of quality checks, we identified that some care plans had not been updated and this had not been identified through the provider's existing audit processes. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager, who took immediate action to update the care plan.
The registered manager confirmed they would review and strengthen their quality checks to ensure care records remained accurate, up to date, and reflective of people's current support needs.
Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) plans were in place and provided person-centred, proactive strategies to guide staff in supporting people to maintain their wellbeing. These plans also helped staff to recognise and respond to early signs of distress, reducing the likelihood of escalation and promoting positive outcomes for people.
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. One professional told us, “The home give [person’s name] choice and control over everyday life and choices. We have worked closely to ensure that [person’s name] gets given the best opportunities and a good quality of life. Communication with the home is really good, we speak regularly”.
People’s needs were assessed before they started to use the service and the registered manager spoke confidently about reviewing people’s needs when there was a change in their needs. Processes were in place to evidence people’s care and support was monitored. As a result of this we saw people’s health and wellbeing had improved and their independence increased.