Affinity Trust – Domicilary Care Agency – Leeds

“Dates of assessment: 18 February 2026 to 1 April 2026. Affinity Trust - Domiciliary Care Agency – Leeds provides personal care and support to people under and over the age of 65 who may have a learning disability.The location supports 2 different Assessment Service Groups (ASGs). The location is registered for the ASGs supported living and domiciliary care. Under CQC’s new assessment methodology, the 2 ASGs are reported on separately. This report is in respect of the supported living services only and considers those people who received support from that ASG and the regulated activity of personal care. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. At the time of our assessment 47 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care. People lived in supported living services in 12 small complexes and received shared support from a communal staff team, along with additional individually funded hours of support. The assessment was prompted due to the time since the last inspection and incoming concerns in relation to the care people received. During the assessment we identified 2 breaches of legal regulation in relation to governance and safe care and treatment. 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. The provider did not consistently ensure safe or well‑governed care, and shortfalls were identified across areas of practice. Systems intended to protect people from harm were not reliably implemented, with inconsistent incident reporting, insufficient follow‑up actions and safeguarding concerns that were not always escalated or addressed. Environmental risks, including a rodent infestation and unsafe outdoor areas were found although the provider showed a chronology demonstrating that steps were being taken to resolve the problem. We found there were gaps in training, supervision and infection prevention measures which further compromised safety. Medicines were not always managed safely, with unsafe administration practices, unclear documentation and ineffective oversight. Although some aspects of effective care were in place such as pre‑admission assessments, partnership working with external professionals and the use of evidence‑based guidance, key documents, including Mental Capacity Act assessments and risk assessments, were not always updated to reflect people’s changing needs, limiting the reliability of care planning. Some staff were not fully confident using the new electronic system, creating risk of outdated or incomplete care information. Despite this, staff generally understood people’s needs, promoted healthier lifestyles and worked collaboratively with health professionals to support day‑to‑day care. Care plans were not always updated and there were limited opportunities for people to share feedback or influence their care. Engagement methods, such as meetings and surveys, were irregular, and documentation did not always show that staff had read or understood care plans. While people had good access to healthcare and community activities, and staff felt well supported by managers, governance arrangements were not strong enough to ensure sustained improvement.”