Amazed Care Services

“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. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. The registered manager told us, “We have done the relevant training so we are aware of what is needed.””

“When we visited, the service were providing a regulated activity to 11 people.”

“We carried out this assessment on 29 September 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 when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people may need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care and treatment in their own homes, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards cannot be used. Instead, an application can be made to the Court of Protection who can authorise deprivations of liberty. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and found it was. The registered manager told us, “We are currently going through the process with [person’s name] trying to get Court of Protection. Their social worker is trying to do a mental capacity assessment with them.””

“The registered manager had good systems and processes in place to help ensure people received person-centred, individualised care that focused on the person and their needs. Staff took a holistic approach in relation to the care they provided. This included taking a person to a restaurant where they could communicate with staff in a language familiar to them, helping to make the experience personal and meaningful.”

“People’s wellbeing was improved through staff input. For example, staff were providing 1 person with a cleaning call only but they noticed the person was not eating well. This resulted in them requesting an additional call from the funding authority so staff could prompt and encourage the person to eat to improve their health. The registered manager told us, “At our last team meeting we talked about standard of care. I want everyone to do the same thing, especially when caring for someone receiving end of life care. We are devoted to this and staff see that and follow by example.””

“Staff worked closely with external agencies and professionals, such as the local hospice and the district nursing team, pharmacy and GP, to support people’s care. Where 1 person was in increased pain, the registered manager arranged with the local pharmacy to collect medication on a Sunday to make the person more comfortable. Professionals told us they were happy with the service and they had good relationships with them.”

“Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were reported and reviewed for lessons learnt and information shared with the whole staff team where relevant. A staff member said, “If you’re not happy (with something), you have to talk to the manager as it’s only going to get worse.” Another…”