Mulberry Court

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 16 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Mulberry Court is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 12 people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. At the time of our assessment, 11 people received a regulated service.We undertook this assessment to follow up on breaches of regulations identified at their previous assessment and to review the previous rating of requires improvement. This assessment reviewed the quality statements in the key questions safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led and included a site visit on the 12 November 2025. Off site assessment activity took place between 13 and 27 November 2025.We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgments 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.

At our last assessment, we found the quality of care plans had improved. We found significant improvements in medicines practice, but areas of medicines processes still needed rectification.

The provider made some improvements in compliance with The Mental Capacity Act. Safeguarding systems were not embedded, and staff had not always recognised when abuse or neglect had occurred nor responded quickly to concerns. There was a lack of consistency in how the service was managed, and not all staff understood their roles and responsibilities, reporting of incidents, risks, issues and concerns was inconsistent. Our last inspection identified three breaches of regulations.

At this assessment we found care plans included information on how to support people’s emotional needs.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and reported incidents, risks and any issues or concernspromptly and appropriately.

Staff liaised with other health and social care professionals and those important to people to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity regarding their care and support needs.

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. The provider made sure staff received training and regular supervision to maintain high-quality care.

Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment systems and processes were robust.

Staff involved people in their care provision and supported them to make choices about aspects of daily life, and people were encouraged to maintain relationships with their relatives.

We identified four environmental safety concerns, however the manager confirmed during our assessment the areas of concern we raised had been actioned.

There were still areas of medicines processes that needed improvement and medication audits only included medicine stock. This was raised with the manager and addressed immediately.

There had been a high turnover of management staff at the service, however the interim manager would apply for dual registration until a permanent manager was recruited. A deputy manager had recently been recruited, and the service was recruiting to a senior staff vacancy.

At this assessment we found the provider remained in breach of the regulations relating to safe care and treatment and good governance.