ASLS (Avens Limited)

The service uses a household model of care. People live in small groups that share a kitchen, lounge and dining area. This helps create a familiar home environment where staff can support people in a more personal and flexible way.

We carried out this assessment on 21 and 25 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. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We found that staff and management worked within the Mental Health Act (MCA). People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. People lived independent lives supported and kept safe by experienced care staff. We saw people free to move around their service environment and to go out for walks, activities and attendance at day centres when they wanted.

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.

Accidents, incidents and safeguarding’s had all been reported and recorded appropriately and any learning from these events were shared with all staff. Staff knew what incidents amounted to a safeguarding and correctly told us the steps they would take to make people safe. Risks to people were assessed and recorded in a way that was easily accessible to staff. People were involved in discussing risks. Staff had the knowledge and experience to support people and knew people well. Staff were able to detect changes in people’s presentation, alerting them to when they were feeling unwell or anxious. Staff had been recruited safely and were further supported with supervision and team meetings. The 3 houses where people lived were homely and offered a safe environment for them to live in. Each environment had been risk assessed for potential hazards. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded correctly and safely.

Managers carried out thorough pre-assessments for people wanting to move to one of the houses. People and their loved ones were involved in this process and regular reviews were carried out to make sure the support provided remained appropriate. Staff were aware of people’s medical and social needs. Care was provided in line with those needs to ensure that people received care and support that worked for them and enabled them to live their fullest lives. People’s ongoing health was managed and reviewed, concerns were addressed quickly and this was supported by other health and social care professionals. Staff always sought consent from people before carrying out a task or activity.

People were supported with kindness from a staff team who understood their needs. People’s dignity was considered and respected at all times. A professionals told us, “I have consistently found staff to be respectful, caring and sensitive to the needs of the adults they support.” People’s levels of independence varied but all were encouraged and supported to enjoy their preferred routines and activities. Some people required support in the community and this was achieved in a non-intrusive way with staff present to ensure people’s safety.

People were at the centre of decision making and then delivery of their care needs. This was reflected in practice and we saw many interactions between staff and people where their wishes and preferences were respected and facilitated. This approach was further demonstrated in care plans, acknowledging people’s strengths and abilities as a priority. People had a voice at the service and could raise concerns or issues with care staff at any time. There were more formal house meetings which were recorded. People’s likes and dislikes were acknowledged and people could engage in activities that they enjoyed, when and where they wanted to within the boundaries of being supported safely.

The registered manager put people’s ongoing needs at the centre of any future plans for the service. The culture at the service was positive and welcoming and all staff we spoke with told us they loved their roles and were supported well. A system of auditing and quality assurance were in place, overseen by the registered manager. Any themes, trends or patterns identified from auditing processes were used as learning points for the future.