Goddard Avenue (145)

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 22 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried out this assessment on 17 and 18 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 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.

People were supported in line with this guidance. For example, people were not subject to any unlawful restrictions, people were encouraged to be part of their community, people’s independence was promoted and people had access to regular social opportunities. People were supported in the least restrictive way.

Staff had received a range of training to meet people’s needs. People’s risks were assessed and staff told us they had enough information to keep people safe. Medicines were generally managed safely. People were safeguarded from abuse.

People’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them moving to the service and this process was managed safely. People’s care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained up to date. People’s outcomes were holistically monitored and people achieved good outcomes as a result.

Staff were kind and caring. Staff promoted people’s independence, choice and control. For example, people were involved in cooking meals on the menu, and one person chose to buy and cook their own meals.

People received care which was person centred. For example, one person preferred to take their medicines with night staff and this was facilitated. We saw other people talking with staff about the activities they enjoyed. There was an inclusive culture where people were empowered to feedback about their care and supported the running of the service.

The provider had a clear vision and values. Staff worked in line with these. There were a range of audits and governance systems which took place which were generally effective. There was a learning culture at the service, and the manager had implemented various new systems and processes to improve the service delivery; staff supported this with their feedback.

However, we found some shortfalls in relation to the health and safety of the service and medicines. There were some areas of the service which showed signs of wear and damage, including chipped paintwork, which meant these areas were harder to clean. Additionally, the provider had completed their own fire risk assessment using a template provided by a fire service. We further identified some small gaps under some fire doors. We raised this with the local fire service who visited the service and advised them appropriately. Finally, people did not have individual risk assessments for the use of flammable creams. These were put in place during the inspection.