The Regard Partnership Limited – Vancouver Road

“Key findings”

“We carried out this assessment between 30 June 2026 and 9 July 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 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 they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.”

“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 respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. The service was meeting the principles of right support, right care, right culture.”

“Although we found in general people received person-centred support, we found some aspects needed to be improved. Although people had been supported to individualise their room, some people had old worn bedroom furniture that needed to be replaced. We also found some other people had not been given their own key to their room and were reliant on staff to hold their key. We raised this with the provider and they made immediate improvements.”

“People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people and their relatives were involved in the process. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were administered safely and there were systems in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infections. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs, recruitment processes were safe, and staff were fully trained and competent.”

“People and their relatives were involved in assessment and ongoing review of their needs. One relative said, “I have always been consulted. The care plan continues to change according to [family member’s] needs.” Staff received relevant training and support to ensure they had skills to deliver evidenced-based care.”

“People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect by staff who promoted their privacy, dignity and rights. People had choice and control over how their care and support was provided. Staff encouraged them to do as much as they could and wanted to do, with activities of daily living, to maintain their independence.”

“People received care from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs and preferences. People were listened to and their feedback was used to make changes to the care and support they wanted. Staff understood people’s right to receive care and support that met their individual needs. People were supported to think about and plan their future wishes.”

“Systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were in place. Despite generally good practices we found some issues with the environment that had not been identified during internal audits. We found step…”