Contact Cares Reablement Team

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates the personal care and support that people may receive. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

The service provided short‑term, time‑limited support, with clear pathways into ongoing care when reablement outcomes could not be achieved. At the time of our inspection 34 people were receiving support.

Who the service is for

This service is registered to support older adults, younger adults, people with dementia, physical and sensory disabilities and mental health conditions.

Our view of the service

We carried out this inspection on 21 May 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this inspection 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 principles of 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.

People consistently told us they felt safe and well supported by kind, patient and respectful staff who understood reablement principles and encouraged independence rather than dependence. People and relatives spoke positively about staff reliability, continuity and communication, and described care as dignified, empowering and responsive to changing needs. Staff demonstrated good awareness of safeguarding, consent and risk and were confident to raise concerns, supported by approachable and visible leaders.

Systems were in place to assess needs, manage risks and monitor quality, and these were generally used effectively. Care was delivered in line with people’s recovery goals and evidence showed positive outcomes, including reduced support and independence achieved at the right time. Medicines were mostly self‑managed or supported by families, and where staff were involved, practice was safe; however, some documentation around risk assessments lacked some sufficient detail and consistency. We fed this back at the time of our inspection.

Governance arrangements, audits and incident monitoring were established and leaders took action when issues were identified. Overall, the service was well led, with a positive, open culture, strong teamwork and a clear focus on person‑centred reablement, and leaders demonstrated commitment to continuous improvement.