Lynx Support Services Ltd

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 10 June 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 Domiciliary Care Agencies, 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. At the time of our assessment no one using the service had a DoLS authorisation in place. The provider understood their responsibilities to apply for DoLS authorisations and people’s capacity was assessed in relation to making specific decisions. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability. 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 was meeting the principles of Right support, right care, right culture’.

There was also a strong focus on safety and learning. Incidents were closely monitored, reviewed, and used to identify trends and reduce risks. Leaders understood their Duty of Candour responsibilities and reported notifiable incidents. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse, and staff felt confident to raise concerns. Risks were effectively managed through detailed risk assessments and care plans. Risks posed to people from the environment were mitigated. People were supported by trained staff who were recruited safely and provided reliable care. Medicines were managed safely with appropriate training, accurate records, and regular audits in place.

People’s needs were assessed prior to people receiving support and regular reviews of people’s care were in place. Healthcare professionals’ advice was incorporated into people’s care plans which gave staff best practice guidance to provide effective care to people. Staff focused on achieving positive outcomes for people, supporting people’s goals and independence. Staff recognised changes in people’s needs and made timely referrals to external professionals, to ensure people had their needs met. People were also provided with clear information about their rights and how to raise concerns.

The service had a clear vision and values, which were consistently reflected in staff practice. Staff felt supported through regular supervision, appraisals, and team meetings, and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews. Leadership and governance systems were in place, with effective quality assurance systems ensuring the service was safe and well managed. Most people, relatives and staff told us the service was well led. A relative said, “I have complained about 1 staff member, but they (management) kept sending them out. It has been ok now for the past few weeks, I hope it stays like that.” Another relative said, “The managers are always easy to get in touch with, they respond to my emails quickly.” A staff member said, “I feel able to raise concerns and my manager is approachable and fair. Staff morale is good, colleagues work well together, support each other, and communicate well. It is a good place to work.” Another staff member said, “I would be happy for my family to use this service. I can see the hard work they (staff) put into their jobs. Management is also quick to respond to any concerns reported by both support workers and family members.” There was a clear commitment to continuous improvement, with digital systems introduced to enhance monitoring and an ongoing quality action plan informed by feedback from people, relatives, and staff.

At our last assessment we rated this service good, at this assessment the service has remained good.