Royal Mencap Society – 145 Kingsley Road

“We carried out this assessment on 10 and 11 August 2026. 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. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.”

“People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people were involved in the process. There were effective systems to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were administered safely. Systems and processes were not always effective to ensure some environmental safety concerns were identified and addressed, although the registered manager took action to resolve these.”

“People had their needs assessed and the service worked well with other professionals to ensure people’s changing needs were well supported. People's nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff knew of people’s specific dietary needs in line with their care plans. People who use the service consistently experienced positive outcomes. People’s views and wishes were central to the support they received. Residents’ meetings reflected people’s wishes, views and opinions on subjects, and these were respected and actioned. People and their relatives told us people could make choices around their lives.”

“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 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 they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.”

“Staff and people had positive relationships and interactions. Staff spoke to people with kindness, compassion and dignity. They knew people well and could talk about people’s needs, wishes, likes, dislikes and personal histories spontaneously.”

“Activities were engaging and meaningful for people both on and off site. They were varied, personalised and people talked positively about what they had done and were planning to do.”

“Staff responded in the moment to people's wishes and needs, which were at the forefront of staff's attention. Staff communicated well with people and understood their individual communication styles. People were happy and comfortable in staff's presence. People knew how to feedback or raise concerns, and people had the opportunity to speak to senior managers. Staff had the knowledge and skills to identify and address discrimination and inequality.”

“Staff were positive and told us they felt well supported by the manager and deputy manager who they said were approachable and motivating. There were not always clearly defined roles regarding some responsibilities about the safety and maintenance of the service. A relationship with 1 stakeholder was…”