SENSE - 129 Neale Avenue

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 29 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Sense – 129 Neale Avenue provides personal care support to people that have learning disabilities. People who live here have complex needs which impact on their ability to communicate. At the time of the inspection 6 people were being supported with regulated activity.

The property blends discreetly into the surrounding residential area and provides ample indoor and outdoor space, allowing people to move around as they choose.

This inspection took place between the dates 4th June 2026 to 26th June 2026. It was carried out by an Inspector, an expert by experience, and a remote medicines inspector.

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.

We reviewed a range of peoples care records, risk assessments, and reviews. We looked at staff records, and a range of policies including those related to medicines, and safeguarding. We spoke to staff, the registered manager, and relatives of people who lived at the home. We obtained opinions from external stakeholders e.g. Local authorities for their opinion of the home.

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

Safe:

Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent if they were able to do so. 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, and where possible, they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. People’s risks were assessed regularly and managed safely. People were supported to take risks in a positive and supportive way.

People told us they felt their relatives were safe, and we observed people acting relaxed and calm with their carers. One relative told us their family member visited them and “Wouldn’t be willing to go back if they didn’t feel safe. (They) are always happy to go home’’

Care and support were delivered in a safe, clean, well-equipped and well-maintained environment. One relative told us, “I found the home to be clean, tidy, and well-maintained".

Relatives knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. Staff told us that “they felt confident to report any problems and the manager would look into them”. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. Staff worked to reduce health and care inequalities using training and feedback to support them.

Safe staff recruitment and training procedures were in place. Other pre-employment checks were in place including DBS checks. A relative told us “They’ve taken the time to choose staff. The warmth of the place feels like a home’’

People were supported with their medicines and received their prescribed medicines by staff trained and assessed as competent to do so. We observed medication being given safely and in line with procedures.

Effective:

People, where possible, were involved in assessments of their needs with relatives also being involved from the beginning. Staff reviewed assessments with them, taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People had choices and enough to eat and drink to stay healthy.

Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care to enable them to reach the best outcomes. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff used their extensive knowledge of one person to recognise changes in them which was indicative of a significant and long-term life changing illness. They advocate on behalf of the person to make sure they continue to receive safe and changing medical and care support.

People’s sensory and physical needs had been thoughtfully considered to ensure the setting was suitable for them. One person, with complex physical needs, as well as learning disabilities had recently been supported to move into the home. We saw how the provider and registered manager were using their extensive knowledge to ensure it was the most appropriate setting. They were proactive in advocating for the person to ensure their needs would be met both initially, and in the long-term.

Staff described how they sought consent and supported people where possible to make day to day decisions, and respected people’s wishes and rights. They explained the importance of this and that people were respected and valued as individuals. Staff demonstrated the different ways in which people lived and their different needs and likes. They knew that one person would let them know when they woke up and wanted a cup of tea before being supported with personal care. We observed another person who wanted a bowl of cereal in the evening, and staff were aware of this and how it was requested.

Caring:

Relatives and external stakeholders were positive about the quality of care. People who received support were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated people as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way.

Staff knew people very well, which meant people’s communication needs were met and information was shared with them in a way they could understand. They understood that decisions could be adapted to suit the person. An example of this was given by staff that somebody might not be able to decide on a full meal but could express if they wanted some parts of it e.g. carrots”.

Responsive:

People remained at the heart of their care and support. Care plans were personalised to reflect preferences and how people wished to be supported. Support plans were comprehensive and staff demonstrated to us how they used the information on them to support people. Staff had access to digital support plans, and some paper records were kept in the home such as hospital grab sheets in case of a medical emergency.

People received care, support and treatment that met their needs, even when these could be unpredictable. Care focused on people’s quality of life and followed best practice. Staff used clinical and quality audits to evaluate the quality of care.

Staff had good knowledge about people and what was important to them. People's diverse needs were promoted. Relatives, and care records confirmed this. One relative told us, “They go to lots of lengths to accommodate (them) and (their) family, and (their) cultural needs”. Bedrooms were fully personalised.

Well-Led:

Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager and the staff team understood the values of what good care should look like. There was an open and transparent culture and support strategy. Staff spoke fondly of the manager and that she cared about them and the people being supported. One told us “My manager is very supportive. (She has) supported me to manage my work/life balance.”

Leaders were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The provider had oversight of the service, and a range of audits were carried out including medicines audits.

A recently acquired digital system gave real-time alerts to enable leaders to act quickly. An example of this could be if staff had not completed timely actions as required, which allows the manager to address any issues. Systems were in place to monitor staff support and training.