243 Church Street

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 8 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 30th April 2026 – 5th May. 243 Church Street is a care home with the capacity to provide residential care to 5 people. On the date of our site visit, there were 5 people living at the service.

The accommodation is provided over 2 floors, with en-suite shower/toilet facilities in all rooms and 2 communal bathrooms available. There is a shared kitchen, living room, sensory room and conservatory, with a spacious back garden.

People consistently experienced high quality, compassionate and person‑centred care that had a positive impact on people’s lives. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding, and people told us they felt safe, valued and protected. Risks were fully understood and people were kept safe whilst being encouraged to take positive risks. Staff used their knowledge of people to support them safely while promoting choice, dignity and independence.

Staff listened meaningfully, involved people in every decision and adapted communication sensitively so everyone could contribute. This respectful, personalised approach helped people feel genuinely heard and in control of their care.

Care was delivered by a regular, compassionate and well‑led team, who knew people well. Staff took proactive steps to support people’s health, well-being and independence, encouraging positive routines, meaningful activity and healthy lifestyles. Medicines were managed safely, with strong partnership working ensuring people received responsive clinical input, when needed.

Outcomes for people were consistently positive. Monitoring of people’s physical and mental health showed clear improvements in well-being, confidence and independence, supported by skilled staff who responded quickly to meet people’s needs and keep them safe and well. Learning was embedded across the service, driving continuous improvement and innovation.

Leadership was a significant strength. The registered manager fostered an inclusive, transparent and compassionate culture where people, relatives and staff felt valued. People and staff felt confident to speak up, knowing concerns or ideas would be taken seriously and acted upon. Strong governance, effective communication and excellent partnership working ensured people received seamless, coordinated care.

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.