Raleigh House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 18 March 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 4 and 5 March 2026.

Raleigh House is a care home providing personal care support to older people with a learning disability and/or autism. At the time of our assessment 4 people were using the service.

We undertook this assessment due to the time since their last inspection. It was a comprehensive assessment reviewing all quality statements across the 5 key questions.

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

Staff knew people well and provided support in line with detailed, up‑to‑date care plans. People were encouraged to make choices and remain as independent as possible, and we saw warm, respectful interactions throughout the visit. Staff understood people’s communication needs and used approaches such as Makaton, clear language, gestures and environmental cues effectively.

The environment was homely, clean and well maintained. Some work was underway to improve the environment including painting the outside of the home and the windows had been recently replaced. The manager had already arranged for window restrictors to be re‑installed and had assessed the risk of people falling from height during the time they were not in place. A maintenance request was also in place to repair a damaged bath panel.

Staff were attentive to people’s safety and supported them sensitively with mobility, eating and personal care. People accessed a wide range of meaningful activities in and outside the home, adjusted to their abilities and preferences. Medicines were administered safely with appropriate protocols, checks and audits. There were no incidents, complaints or safeguarding concerns, and the service worked openly with partners, including GPs and advocates.

Staff worked flexibly and showed strong teamwork. They felt well supported, received regular training and competency checks, and understood their responsibilities, including reporting concerns. There were clear governance arrangements, including regular audits, reviews of care plans, and oversight of quality and safety. Leadership was visible, approachable and promoted an open culture focused on people’s wellbeing.