The Poplars

This is a service for working-age adults with a learning disability or who are autistic. There is a separate service of the same name run from an office at the same address that supports people in their own homes. The latter service was not considered at this inspection.

We carried out this assessment on 27 August and 7 October 2026. The 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.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

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. The registered manager understood people should experience the fewest possible restrictions for their safety, and ensured staff worked in a way consistent with this.

Staff treated people kindly and respectfully, upholding their privacy and dignity. They promoted people’s independent living skills. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people’s right to live free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The registered manager shared concerns appropriately with statutory agencies concerned with safeguarding people who might be vulnerable as a result of their health or circumstances.

People were at the centre of their care, with a meaningful say in how this was planned and provided. Staff were attentive to people’s needs and wishes, providing the safe and supportive care they required, in line with legislation and evidence-based good practice. This enabled people to do the things that mattered to them at home and in the wider community, and helped them manage their health. The registered manager and staff routinely reviewed care with people, so they continued to experience the positive outcomes they wanted.

Whilst the premises had a homely appearance, and staff ensured they were clean, some of the décor and carpets were shabby and worn. The registered manager’s health and safety audits had already identified these areas as needing attention, but repairs required the provider to authorise funding.

Medicines were not stored securely, as the medicines storage cabinets for general medicines and for medicines requiring additional security were not sufficiently robust. We drew this to the attention of the registered manager, who afterwards confirmed the provider had organised for appropriate medicines storage to be installed.

However, people received their medicines as prescribed. Processes operated to help ensure this happened correctly. Prescribers reviewed people's medicines to ensure these were prescribed at effective doses and that people were not overmedicated.

Skilled and experienced staff worked well together to support people. Staff told us the registered manager was readily available if they needed her support. They understood what was expected of them and told us the registered manager would give them constructive feedback about things they did well or needed to improve.

The registered manager had a clear overview of how the service was operating. She spent much of her time with people living at The Poplars and with staff, informally observing what was happening. She encouraged people, their relatives and staff to share feedback, including any concerns, with her; we observed them doing this during the inspection. She also oversaw a range of audits and reviewed accidents and incidents, sharing learning with the provider and staff as appropriate, with a focus on improving people’s outcomes and quality of life.