HD2-1

The service supported autistic people and people with a learning disability in a supported living setting.

We carried out this assessment on 6 August 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.

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. If someone lacks the mental capacity to consent and requires continuous supervision or restricted freedom to stay safe, this must be legally authorised by the Court of Protection. The provider evidenced that community DoLS applications had been applied for when required by service.

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’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service and used to develop personalised care and support plans. People and those important to them were involved in decisions about their care, and the provider undertook assessments to ensure they could meet people's needs safely and effectively before placements were accepted.

Care plans provided detailed information about people’s communication needs, health conditions, preferences, risks and support requirements. People were supported to access healthcare services and routine appointments, and care plans, risk assessments and support arrangements were reviewed regularly. Medicines were managed safely, and the care environment was safe.

People received care and support from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs, routines and preferences.

Our observations supported this feedback. We observed warm, caring and respectful interactions between staff and people. Staff communicated using approaches tailored to individual needs, including gestures, visual prompts and clear verbal communication. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s communication styles and responded appropriately to both verbal and non-verbal cues. One person expressed excitement through sounds and gestures and offered a handshake. Staff responded warmly and positively. People were relaxed and comfortable around staff. They were confident in seeking support and reassurance. We observed staff promote people’s equality, diversity, independence and human rights. They encouraged choice, participation and involvement in daily life.

Risk management systems supported people to remain safe while maintaining choice and independence. Care plans included detailed risk assessments covering areas such as epilepsy, medication administration, behaviour, finances, personal care and accessing the community. Staff monitored people’s wellbeing and progress, shared important information during handovers and worked with health and social care professionals when concerns were identified. Handover records showed staff routinely discussed health matters, medication, environmental issues and any changes in people’s needs.

The provider had systems in place to record, review and learn from incidents, accidents and complaints. We reviewed records relating to a complaint about aspects of personal care and support. The registered manager investigated the concerns, discussed them with staff and implemented actions to improve practice. The provider actively sought feedback from people, relatives and staff and used this information to drive improvements.

Professionals also provided positive feedback. A local authority quality assurance representative told us the provider was “proactive during visits, sharing good practice, answering questions and providing evidence to validate our audits.” They reported the service responded promptly to feedback, implemented actions in a timely way and actively participated in local provider forums. Information shared by the local authority identified positive outcomes in areas including staffing arrangements, incident management and quality monitoring systems.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service and told us they felt supported by the management team. They described receiving regular supervision, training and opportunities to reflect on incidents and learning. Staff consistently told us there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. This was reflected in staffing records, which showed staff had regular time off, access to annual leave and staffing levels were maintained. Staff said management were approachable, responsive and supportive.

The provider promoted positive working relationships with families and other partners to meet people’s needs. They maintained oversight and regularly assessed the quality of the service.