Loading
Date of assessment: 26 September to 10 October 2025. Enabling Others Limited is a supported living provider, supporting people who live in their private residence, under the age of 65, and who are living with mental health conditions or learning disabilities. At the time of this assessment the service was supporting 17 people. However, only 8 of the people were being supported with the regulated activity of personal care. CQC only look at people’s records if they are in receipt of the regulated activity. An assessment has been undertaken of a service specialising in supporting autistic people or people with a learning disability. We have 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. We carried out this assessment to follow up on concerns we received about the support provided for people. At this assessment, we found evidence to substantiate these concerns. As such, we found the provider to be in breach of legal regulations relating to person-centred care, consent, safe care and treatment, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed. In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward. This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we user our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide. People were not always kept safe. Medicines were not always managed safely, and the provider did not establish effective safeguarding systems to ensure people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. The providers systems and processes did not always establish and maintain safe systems of care. Lessons were not learnt to continually identify and embed best practice. Risks related to people’s care were not always managed effectively, and the provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. The provider did not make sure people were supported by well trained, competent and experienced staff and recruitment checks were not thorough. Care was not always effective. Assessment processes were not always used effectively to ensure that risk related to people’s care needs was properly understood. Guidance on how to meet people’s needs was not always detailed or consistent. People were mostly supported to achieve positive outcomes with their support, but care was not always effectively monitored to inform and develop care practices. The provider did not work within the key principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The service was not always caring. The provider did not always promote people’s independence. People’s care records did not always provide staff with consistent guidance on how to meet people’s immediate needs safely. The provider and staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Care was not always responsive. People’s care records were not always updated when their needs changed. The provider could not be assured appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information was always supplied in formats that were tailored and appropriate to individual needs. Relatives were not always satisfied that appropriate action was taken when concerns were raised. Despite these concerns, the provider made sure that people could access the care support when they needed it, and some people were supported by staff to achieve good outcomes. Governance was not always effective. Leaders at the service did not always act with honesty and integrity, and in some instances the provider had made clinical care decisions without consulting professionals with the relevant clinical experience. Most staff felt there was good diversity and respect of cultures and religious beliefs; however, not all staff felt well supported by leaders. Quality assurance and oversight processes were not always effective at identifying shortfalls and ensuring service improvement. Opportunities for learning, creativity and service improvement were missed at multiple instances.
npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-11759868345.Bretby Business Park - Enabling Others received a Good rating across all five key questions at its first inspection in October 2022, with particular strengths in person-centred care, positive behaviour support and partnership working. Minor recommendations were made regarding the development of more robust quality assurance systems and ensuring all staff receive regular formal supervision.