Magdalen Close Hostel

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 20 March 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Assessment dates: 21 January to 5 February 2026. The service is registered as a residential care home providing support to people with a learning disability, and or autistic people. Support is also provided to people with a physical disability, sensory impairment, or long-term health conditions. The layout of the service comprises of a number of separate houses and self-contained flats set around a central courtyard area. Whilst the focus of the service is on reablement and assessment to support people to maximise their independence and move on to suitable accommodation, the scheme also supports a small cohort of people who have lived at the service long-term. We found 3 breaches of regulations at this inspection relating to safety, dignity and governance.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The overall rating for this service is requires improvement. Although many people experienced warm, caring relationships with staff and described their home as safe and familiar, weaknesses in governance and record keeping meant the provider was not consistently meeting regulatory requirements. These shortfalls limited assurance people always received well coordinated and person-centred care.

People told us they felt supported by staff, and relatives repeatedly described staff as kind, patient and reassuring. Staff were committed and many had worked at the service for several years. Day to‑day interactions were caring, and people said they enjoyed activities, routines and time spent with staff. People had good outcomes and were supported with their healthcare needs. However, documentation did not always reflect this positive culture. Care plans, risk assessments and incident records were often out of date, incomplete or lacked detail about people’s current needs, which meant staff did not always have reliable written guidance to support consistent care.

Safety systems required strengthening. Although staff knew people well, key risks were not always formally assessed or reviewed. Some environmental safety processes, including fire safety documentation and personalised evacuation plans, were unavailable, outdated or lacked detail about people’s support needs. Recruitment files held locally did not always contain required pre‑employment checks, meaning managers on site could not demonstrate robust oversight of safe staffing.

There was a newly registered manager who had taken over at the service, who was working with ineffective legacy systems whilst also overseeing multiple changes at the location. Leadership remained caring and approachable, but oversight processes were not robust. Audits were inconsistent, statutory notifications had not been submitted as required, and records did not always evidence safe practice. Leaders recognised these issues and had begun work to strengthen systems, including introducing new digital tools. We have asked the provider to send us an action plan explaining how they will address these areas and make sure improvement is made and sustained.