Derby

We 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.

People received care and support that was safe, person‑centred and responsive to their individual needs. Care plans were well written, detailed and reflected a strong understanding of each person’s history, routines, communication, and what mattered to them. Risks were clearly identified, realistic and linked to people’s day‑to‑day presentation.

People and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and supportive. People said they felt listened to and able to raise concerns, and relatives said they would contact the registered manager if they needed to because they felt confident they would be heard, although some improvement was occasionally required to communication between the office and people using the service.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm. There was some evidence of learning from incidents, however there was no formal process in place to analyse and scrutinise these.

Safeguarding concerns were well recorded and strong links with community nurses, mental health professionals and local authority teams.

Medicines were managed safely, with clear arrangements where the provider was not responsible for administration.

Staff recruitment was mostly safe, with appropriate DBS checks, right‑to‑work evidence, interviews and health declarations, however further improvement was needed to ensure gaps in employment were covered.

Staff described management as approachable and available, and policies such as whistleblowing, complaints and lone working promoted a culture of openness and accountability. People and relatives reported positive relationships with staff and felt the support they received improved their wellbeing and independence.

Governance systems needed improvement. While care plans were of a good standard, there was limited evidence of structured audits to demonstrate how the provider assured ongoing quality and safety. Incident and accident recording and analysis were not well evidenced, and some care plans would benefit from clearer, decision‑specific Mental Capacity Act (MCA) documentation.