Office

Who the service is for

The service supports older and younger adults, people with physical disabilities, dementia and learning disabilities and autistic people. The service supports people with small teams of two to three carers to ensure that people have consistency in their care team.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment between 9 September and 8 October 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.

The service was providing safe, effective and person-centred care. People and their relatives told us they felt safe and were positive about the care and support they received. One person said, “Staff help me feel safe as much as they can do.”

Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to identify and escalate concerns. One staff member told us, “I feel able to raise concerns.” Risk assessments were clear and comprehensive, with evidence that people and their relatives were involved in identifying risks and planning how these should be managed. Staffing arrangements were viewed positively, and staff felt well supported through induction and training. One staff member said, “The training I received helps me to be confident in my job role and to do my job safely.” Medicines audits were used effectively to identify areas for improvement, and PRN (as required) protocols were in place where required.

The service was working in line with the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. People were supported to maintain their independence, choice and control, and staff understood how people preferred to be supported. One staff member said, “[we] encourage [people] to be independent and take part in their own care.” Feedback demonstrated positive and caring relationships between people and staff, with one relative describing carers as being “like family”. The service also promoted a positive, person-centred culture, with staff feeling listened to and encouraged to contribute ideas and improvements.

People’s needs were clearly assessed and staff understood how people preferred to receive their support. One person told us, “They know I like a handful of granola with warm milk on.” Care documentation was sufficiently detailed and reflected people’s individual needs. There was a strong and proactive approach to reviewing people’s care and support. Rather than relying solely on scheduled reviews, care plans were reviewed every four to six weeks and whenever people’s circumstances changed. This helped ensure changes were identified and responded to promptly, and that people’s care continued to reflect their individual needs, preferences and desired outcomes.

Mental capacity assessments were generally clear. However, records did not consistently explain how and when assessments were undertaken or what support people had received to help them make the relevant decision. Some assessments had been completed without a recorded reason to question the person’s capacity. We shared this feedback with the nominated individual, who told us they would address these points.

People and relatives spoke positively about staff and described caring and meaningful relationships. One relative said, “They treated [person] as if she was their own [relative].” We found no concerns relating to equity in people’s experiences or outcomes.

There was a positive and supportive culture within the service. People, relatives and staff were positive about the management of the service, and staff told us they felt listened to and were encouraged to contribute ideas through meetings and training. One staff member said, “I receive debrief from my manager or senior team lead in a structured and blame-free conversation.” Another staff member, talking about learning from incidents, said, “We speak extensively about what happened, why it happened and what to do to prevent future occurrences.” Governance arrangements were effective in monitoring the quality of the service and supporting the delivery of good-quality care.

Overall, the evidence demonstrated systems and practices were in place to support safe, effective, caring and person-centred care. The remaining opportunities for improvement related primarily to strengthening the detail and application of mental capacity assessments rather than wider concerns about the quality or safety of people’s care.