1-2 Prior’s Court Cottages is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is provided in one of three converted and extended two-storey cottages. It provides care for up to six young adults between 19 and 25 with needs on the autistic spectrum who may require support to manage their behaviour. The service provides supported transitions for people between children's and adults' services. At the time of this inspection five people were receiving support within the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. (Registering the Right Support CQC policy). These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were treated with respect and their dignity was maximised in the way staff provided support.

People were kept as safe as possible because risks to people and staff were identified, assessed and appropriate steps taken to minimise them. Health and safety checks and servicing were carried out as required. The service had a robust recruitment system to ensure, as much as possible, that staff had the right approach and skills. People were supported by staff who were well trained and supported and who were additionally supported to develop their knowledge and skills. Staff understood the impact of their autism on each person and responded to their individual needs consistently. Where people needed support to manage their behaviours, this was delivered in planned, consistent ways which were kept under regular review. Staff had all been trained in a nationally recognised behaviour support technique.

Healthcare was very good and medical conditions were managed very well using appropriate technology where necessary to keep people safe. People’s transitions in and out of the service were extremely well planned and supported to try to give them the best chance of success.

People’s care was delivered according to detailed individual care plans which were subject to regular review. The views of relevant others were sought when reviewing people’s care needs. People had wide ranging opportunities for involvement in activities, holidays and supported employment. They continued to develop their skills through attending the on-site learning centre.

Each person’s communication preferences were recorded, understood and supported by the staff working with them. Communication aids were used effectively to enable people to be as involved in making decisions and choices as possible. People’s individual and diverse needs were met.

The provider and management exercised thorough governance over the service through a range of effective monitoring and audit systems.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

1-2 Prior’s Court Cottages is one of three registered locations providing ongoing support to young adults on the autistic spectrum who exhibit behaviours which may harm themselves or others. It provides a continuing education service to young adults from 19-25. Three quarters of young adults have previously attended the Prior’s Court Trust’s on-site school, a quarter are admitted from external services. The provider offers an on-site educational and vocational service via the learning centre, attended daily by the young adults, based on individual assessments and needs.

The service has a registered manager who had been off for three months studying for a Master’s degree. An acting manager had managed the service in the interim until the registered manager’s scheduled return in January 2016.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service provides safe and effective care to people on the autistic spectrum. People’s support needs around their behaviours were well managed and people retained appropriate control over their day to day lives.

Relatives were very happy with how the service met people’s needs and were appropriately involved in decision-making about people’s care. Relatives felt their views were sought, listened to and acted upon.

People’s legal rights and freedom were protected by the staff. Their health, dietary and emotional wellbeing were well supported. Care plans and related records were detailed, individualised and regularly reviewed.

Staff told us they received appropriate training and support and that their views about people’s needs and the service itself were listened to.

The service was well led and monitored and sought to constantly develop and improve.

We found that the parents of the people supported at 1-2 Prior’s Court were involved in reviews and key decision making on behalf of the people supported. The young adults living at 1-2 Priors Court were also supported to make choices and consent to aspects of their daily routines and care.

People’s care and support was clearly described within detailed care plans and supporting documents which were regularly reviewed. Appropriate support was sought from specialists including the speech and language team and psychologists. Parents gave us very positive feedback about the quality of care and support provided. One parent told us the staff were "very good at involving parents". Another parent said the staff sent them "DVD's and photos" of their son enjoying the activities provided.

Staff understood their role in safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff had acted in accordance with the procedures in place to safeguard people.

Staff received a comprehensive induction and attended a planned programme of core training to equip them with the skills they needed. On-going support and staff development was provided through regular supervision and appraisal.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the effectiveness of 1-2 Prior’s Court. The views of parents and staff were sought as part on monitoring and developing the service. Any complaints were responded to and addressed promptly. One parent told us "they always listen to what we say and make changes".

We found that the care and support needs of people in 1-2 Priors Court were assessed and identified in detail and addressed within detailed care plans. The parents of the people supported were happy with the care provided and the way staff involved them and kept them informed.

The ‘continuing education’ ethos was supported by the wide range of social and vocational opportunities made available to people in the home. Where people sometimes required support to manage their behaviour, this was provided by staff who had received recognised training in the approach used. All incidents were documented and analysed and parents were happy that they had been kept informed of these.

Parents felt the staff were competent and good at maintaining regular communication with them. They told us the staff and management were approachable and listened to their views. One parent told us the staff “…provided a varied range of activities and occupational opportunities”. Another parent said the staff do “…good work on communication and learning”.

A programme of staff training was provided, though we found some gaps in this. Staff supervision and appraisal had also not been regularly provided. The operation of the service was subject to regular management monitoring within and outside the home. Parents had opportunities to contribute their opinions about how the service operated.