Neptune House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 15 June 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment 10 February to 06 March 2026. We completed this assessment to follow up on concerns received about the service about the environment, staff shortages, activities, medicines management, restrictive practice and the culture as well as the age of the rating of the service. We carried out a comprehensive assessment. Neptune House is a residential care home providing accommodation for persons who require personal care. It can provide care for up to 15 people. The service is registered to provide support to people with learning disabilities and autistic people. At the time of our assessment 15 people were staying at the service.

An assessment has been undertaken of a service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability but is not registered as a specialist service. 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.

We identified 9 breaches of regulations relating to risk management including medicines management, staffing, recruitment of staff, safeguarding people from abuse, person-centred care, dignity and respect, need for consent, good governance and, the requirement to notify of certain events.

The provider’s audit systems had not always detected issues identified in the assessment. Staff told us they received appropriate training and support to enable them to care for people safely. Some staff had not undertaken all of their mandatory training; staff had not completed catheter care training. Staff had not always been safely recruited. People were not always protected from poor care and abuse. Safeguarding concerns had not always been reported to the appropriate authorities. Medicines were not always managed safely. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. However, staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests because video and audio monitors were used at all times to observe people and listen to people when they were in their bedrooms. This evidenced the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice. Some people had video and audio monitors which were in place without consent records or capacity and best interests records. Some people’s dignity and privacy were not respected. Records were not always held securely.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Staff supported people to take part in activities of their choice. People were supported to pursue interests in the local area. Before people accessed the service their needs were assessed. We observed there were enough staff on shift to support people. Staffing was adjusted to each person’s assessed needs. Staff worked with health professionals to ensure people got the care and support they needed. The provider had systems and processes in place to promote and support staff wellbeing.