104 Tennyson Road is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to eight people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection eight people were using the service. 104 Tennyson Road is a large house and has accommodation over three floors.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient numbers of staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

Effective infection control measures were in place to protect people.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were also supported with regular supervisions.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including Community Psychiatric Nurse’s (CPN’s), opticians and doctors, to make sure they received additional healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

Care plans were written in a person centred way and were responsive to people’s needs.

People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

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.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

During our inspection on 25 July 2013, we found a supportive environment, where people were supported by staff who were knowledgeable and responsive to their individual needs.

We observed that the lounge was not a homely and comfortable environment for people to relax in. However, we were told about the provider's refurbishment plans for the home and we were satisfied that the provider would improve the lounge environment as part of these plans.

We spoke with three people who told us that they were happy with the support they received from staff. They all told us that they took part in a number of activities and they were not bored. They attended activities run by other organisations, helping them to develop friendships with people who did not live in the home.

We observed respectful, responsive and compassionate interactions between staff and the people they supported. During the visit, we observed staff involve people in the planning of trips to the town centre. People were supported to use public transport as part of their goals to develop independent living skills.

We visited this service on 27th June 2012 and met and spoke with five of the six people using the service.

People told us that they were involved in the running of the home, for example there was a residents meeting on a Friday morning when events were planned and decisions made about the week ahead. One person said, “I can say what I like at the meeting”. We saw that people’s views and decisions were recorded in the minutes of the residents meeting. Another person told us about how they had been involved in the redecoration of their bedroom; including choosing the shade of pink they liked the best.

We discussed with people how their care and support was provided and they told us that they knew what was in their care plans.

We observed that the staff were caring in their approach to people, and when they engaged with people verbally, this was done slowly and clearly to help people understand and consider what was being said to them.

During our visit we observed how lunchtime was managed. We spoke to people having their lunch and they told us that the staff either got the meal for them, or helped them to prepare it. We were told that within reason they could have lunch when they wanted it and could make choices from what was available in the kitchen cupboards. One person said, “the food is usually good. I like cooking spaghetti bolognaise”. They went on tell us that they would occasionally help staff with cooking.

We saw that people were involved in making decisions about the environment in which they lived. People told us that currently they had been asked to complete a questionnaire about smoking in their bedrooms.

Everyone we spoke with told us that they knew how to make a complaint and who to talk to if they had any concerns.

During our visit on 3 February 2012, the people we spoke with told us they were very happy living at 104 Tennyson Road. They told us they got on well with staff and that they felt well supported. They each had a copy of their care plan and so knew what support they needed and had agreed.

The people who live at this home raised an issue with us about the only shower in the home. We felt that it compromised people’s privacy and dignity. We have asked the provider to take action to address this.

104 Tennyson Road is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to eight people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection eight people were using the service. 104 Tennyson Road is a large house and has accommodation over three floors.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient numbers of staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

Effective infection control measures were in place to protect people.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were also supported with regular supervisions.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including Community Psychiatric Nurse’s (CPN’s), opticians and doctors, to make sure they received additional healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

Care plans were written in a person centred way and were responsive to people’s needs.

People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

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.

Further information is in the detailed findings below