3 Ferrers Drive

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 9 September 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried out this assessment on 12 August and 19 August. This included an out of hours visit. 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 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 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.

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 disabilityrespect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Staff supported people in line with this guidance. People were supported to be independent, access the community and live an ordinary life.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and had received a range of training suitable to people’s needs. Staff had been recruited safely and received regular supervision and support. Comments from staff included, “I get on well with [Manager]” and “[Manager] is supportive.” Staff undertook regular health and safety checks. The service was well maintained.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving to the service. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing to enable them to achieve positive outcomes. People’s capacity was assessed and best interest decisions were completed where people lacked capacity. Staff always asked for people’s consent and respected people’s choices. For example, we observed the manager asking people if it was okay for inspectors to look at their bedrooms.

Staff were kind and caring. There was a strong focus on independence, choice and control. For example, people were involved in meal preparation and daily living skills, and these were individualised to each person. One person said they do not like cooking but liked washing up. People were encouraged to be independent where possible with personal care, and people chose their menus. Staff consistently engaged with people to review and discuss their care and treatment, recognising people were decision makers in their own care. Staff comments included, “We try to (support) people (to be) independent with washing and dressing as much as possible” and “We include people in jobs like mopping the floors.”

People’s care was person centred. For example, care plans contained the person’s voice and records demonstrated staff had sat with people individually to write their care plans together. We saw when people had chosen to take part in a new activity or set a goal for themselves, these were achieved or being worked on which demonstrated progress.

All feedback about the manager was positive. Comments included: “[Manager] is brilliant” and “[Manager] is supportive.”