The Alan Shearer Centre

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 21 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We assessed The Alan Shearer Centre between 27 April and 21 May 2026. The service provides accommodation and personal care for people with learning disabilities and complex care needs. The service provides residential and respite care. At the time of our assessment, 8 people were living at the service permanently. No one was receiving respite care during the assessment period, so we were unable to observe this part of the service or obtain feedback about people's experiences of respite care.

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. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives, maintain relationships with those important to them, take part in activities they enjoyed, and access their local community. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to support people's wellbeing and respond to changes in their needs.

Staff knew people well and understood their communication methods, preferences, and support needs. Relatives spoke positively about the care provided and described staff as caring, knowledgeable, and responsive.

The service had systems to learn from feedback and respond to concerns. Leaders promoted a positive culture, and staff wellbeing was actively supported.

Most health and safety monitoring was completed as expected. However, we identified some gaps in environmental monitoring. Although these had not resulted in harm and action was being taken to address them, they had not always been identified through existing oversight systems. Although mental capacity assessments had been completed, they were often generic, lacked detail and were not always decision specific. Records of best interests' decision-making were also limited, making it difficult to demonstrate how decisions had been made when people may have lacked capacity.

Overall, people received safe, caring, and personalised support from staff who knew them well. Improvements were needed to strengthen oversight of some environmental monitoring processes