Raven Support Limited

Not everyone supported by the service received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of the assessment 5 people were receiving the regulated activity ‘personal care’.

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. The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice, and independence.

People experienced highly personalised, compassionate and responsive care delivered by staff who knew them exceptionally well.

People told us they felt safe with staff and trusted them to provide consistent, reliable care.

The service supported people to safely transition from long-stay psychiatric wards back into the community, transitions were well managed and people were fully involved in the process. The service prided themselves on the success of these transitions and low number of readmissions.

Risks were well assessed and managed, and people and relatives described a significant reduction in incidents. They attributed this to the quality and consistency of staff support.

Leadership and staff attitudes promoted positive risk‑taking, community inclusion and meaningful outcomes.

Medicines were managed safely, and there were clear safeguarding processes in place, with staff demonstrating a good awareness of how to recognise and report concerns.

People were cared for by compassionate and respectful staff who knew them exceptionally well. Relationships were strong and trusting. People consistently described staff as kind, caring and respectful. There was a strong focus on dignity, consent and involvement, with people actively encouraged to make choices and retain independence. Staff supported people to attend health appointments, maintain social connections and work towards personal goals. Outcomes for people were very positive.

Care was person-centred and responsive, with care plans reflecting people’s preferences, communication needs and changing circumstances. Relatives and professionals spoke highly of the service’s partnership working and its trauma‑informed, person‑centred approach.

The service was well led, with a positive culture and strong leadership from the registered manager. Staff felt supported and described leaders as approachable and compassionate. Governance systems were in place to monitor quality, incidents and risks, and learning was shared, although some staff noted fewer opportunities for face‑to‑face learning due to lone working. The registered manager had a plan in place to address this.

External professionals consistently reported excellent collaborative working and confidence in the service’s ability to support people with complex support needs, including during periods of crisis or transition.

The provider demonstrated a strong commitment to learning, continuous improvement and partnership working, using feedback and reflection to improve outcomes for people. Overall, the service demonstrated a strong, person-centred culture with committed leadership and staff who were proud of the positive impact of their work.