1 Hill Close is a service which accommodates up to three adults with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were two people using the service. 1 Hill Close is located next to another of the provider’s services at 2 Hill Close, and these services form part of a complex with a third, larger service called Hillcrest. Many elements of the running of these services are shared across all three services, therefore we inspected these services on the same day as much of the evidence we needed to gather was common to all three. For this reason some parts of each report will be the same.

At our last inspection in February 2015 we rated 1 Hill Close as ‘Good’, and did not identify any breaches of regulation. At this inspection the service remained good.

Why the service is rated ‘Good’.

People told us they felt safe at 1 Hill Close. Risks associated with care and the environment in and around the home were well assessed.

Staff were recruited safely, and understood how to recognise and report any safeguarding concerns they had. There were enough staff on duty.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff had a thorough induction and had access to on-going training and support. The registered manager carried out checks to ensure training was effective.

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. The provider asked for people’s consent to care and treatment. Some key information relating to this was in accessible formats.

People enjoyed their meals and were asked what they wanted to be on menus. The provider supported people to access health and social care professionals when needed.

We received some good feedback about the staff who worked at 1 Hill Close. People had access to activities which reflected their interests. Staff understood how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

There was person-centred information in people’s care plans. Accessible formats had been used effectively to enable people to write detailed plans for end of life care.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the provider’s services within the complex, and said they had a good relationship with the registered manager. They told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable.

The provider was monitoring quality in the service. People were consulted and the registered manager undertook regular audits to ensure areas for improvement were identified and addressed. We received good feedback about care standards from a visiting health professional we spoke with.

We inspected 1 Hill Close on 6 February 2015. The visit was unannounced. Our last inspection took place in June 2013 and there were no identified breaches of legal requirements.

1 Hill Close provides personal care and accommodation for up to three adults with learning disabilities. It is part of a care complex owned by Hillcrest and Lyndale Care and Support Services Ltd that also includes 2 Hill Close and Hillcrest. There were three people living in the home when we visited. The home has two floors. There is a lounge and kitchen/dining area on the ground floor, two bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor. There is a garden to the rear of the property.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Risks to people were managed well and gave people freedom, yet kept them safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report any abuse.

Staffing levels were sufficient which meant people were supported with their care and enabled to pursue interests of their choice in the community.

No-one at the home was subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained and had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

We saw that medicines were managed safely at the home. We looked at medication administration records (MAR) which showed people were receiving their medicines when they needed them.

Staff had developed positive, respectful relationships with people and were kind and caring in their approach. People were given choices in their daily routines and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported and empowered to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives.

People’s nutritional needs were met and they received the health care support they required.

Staff knew people well and were trained, skilled and competent in meeting people’s needs. Staff were supported and supervised in their roles. People told us they were happy with the care they received, which we saw was individually tailored to meet their needs. People were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement. People and staff were actively involved in developing the service. There was strong leadership which promoted an open culture, which put people at the heart of the service.

We saw there was a complaints procedure in place which was displayed in the home. People we spoke with told us they knew how to complain but had never needed to. The home had not received any complaints since our last inspection in June 2014.

People told us they enjoy living in their home and liked the people caring for them. One person said they like going out and said they had been to Pugneys’ Country Park and they also like going to ‘Linked’ the day opportunities centre. One visiting relative writes on a quality assurance survey that ‘We love to see the photographs of what’s been happening all year. Thank you’. Another relative writes in a stakeholder survey that they are ‘More than satisfied’ that their relatives care and healthcare needs are met.

People told us they like their home and the people caring for them. One person said they like going out and they have been to Castleford and Holmfirth and they like going out in the mini bus. A relative writes in a recent stakeholder survey that the home provides ‘Good communication and a swift response’ to any concerns.

People living in the home told us they like the people caring and supporting them

One relative writes in a recent Stakeholder Survey that the ‘Staff have a very thorough knowledge of peoples needs and there are programmes tailored to meet them’. People using the service told us they are well cared for and supported.

One relative writes on a recent Stakeholder Survey ‘The home provides a flexible and responsive service and there is a very good understanding of individuals and how best to meet their needs’.

1 Hill Close is a small home for up to three people. The home is located next to 2 Hill Close and Hillcrest, which belong to the same organisation, and all three services work closely together.

We spoke with people living in the home, staff and the registered manager. We found staff involved people in decisions about their care and daily lives. We saw staff supported people to maintain their independence. People told us they went out regularly and enjoyed the different activities that were available.

We saw staff gave people the support and assistance they needed. The care records we reviewed were person-centred, holistic and provided detailed information. We saw safe systems were in place to manage people’s medicines. People told us the staff were “nice” and “kind”.

We found the home to be comfortable and well maintained. People told us they liked living there. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. There were systems in place to deal with complaints. People told us they would speak to staff if they were unhappy about anything.