Head Office

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service demonstrated understanding of the guidance but did not always apply it.

People were not always protected from abuse and improper treatment. People were subject to control which was not a proportionate response to the risk of harm posed to them. The provider had not adequately assessed the risk of harm to people and disregarded the needs of people for care or treatment. We found people did not have assessments in place showing the level of control they were subjected to was in their best interest. We found some people who made unwise decisions had not been referred to specialist services to enable a joined-up approach.

People were offered enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. However, staff did not consistently seek advice from other agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and to support seamless transitions when moving between services. While there were some good examples of support with transitions and some people experienced a high level of support, this was not the standard for all individuals. Staff monitored people’s health to support healthy living; however, this was not always consistently documented, and concerns were not always raised in a timely manner to the right professionals. While staff made sure people with capacity understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent, staff did not always involve those important to people, when making decisions in people’s best interests, and staff had not always documented the least restrictive options available to people were considered.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, and their privacy and dignity were protected. Staff treated people as individuals and supported people’s preferences. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. However, we found some people lacked choice in their activities and had a rigid activity schedule which was not backed up by a robust care plan or assessment. Systems and processes were not always in place to identify concerns and drive improvements. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment