Magic House

“Date of Assessment: 7 to 10 October 2024. This assessment was prompted by information we held about the service, including existing and emerging concerns. The assessment covered the entirety of the safe and well-led key questions, and parts of the effective, caring and responsive key questions. The service is a supported living service providing care and support to people with varied physical and mental health needs, including people with a learning disability and autistic people. The service consisted of several supported living schemes in and outside of London. 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. Safety was not always adequately managed. We found concerns in relation to assessing risks to people, ensuring people were protected from abuse or neglect, management of medicines, monitoring and reducing incidents, and staff training. In some cases, the way the service assessed people’s needs was not always efficient which could potentially impact the care provided to people. There were gaps in how the service managed complaints. We found inconsistencies and shortfalls in the governance of the service, including the effectiveness of quality assurance systems. Where improvements had been made, these were not always maintained across the different parts of the service. These concerns resulted in 3 breaches of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and staffing, and 1 repeated breach of regulation regarding good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against the provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded. However, we also found a number of examples of good care and good practice. For example, people received person-centred care and staff responded positively to their individual needs. There was an open culture where people and staff felt comfortable to raise concerns. There were also good support systems for staff.”