People and their relatives told us they felt safe at 24 Seabrook Road. One person told us “I am safe here. There’s always someone looking out for me.” A relative told us “The impact the service has had on our lives are parents is huge. We feel confident and comfortable that they are safe.”

People were safeguarded from potential harm and abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding, and could identify different types of abuse and potential warning signs they would look out for. One member of staff told us “I would look for a change in behaviour for example if they were withdrawn or quiet or declining activities they would normally do.” Another staff told us “If I had any concerns I would go to CQC, the police or safeguarding.” Staff told us they felt confident that any concerns raised would be acted on by the manager and provider. The provider had a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy which staff were aware of and able to refer to should they need to. Safeguarding risks and concerns were discussed during regular staff meetings.

Risks to people had been assessed and mitigated. People’s care plans contained personalised risk assessments which were specific to each individual and their needs. These included risks to people’s mental health care needs, aggression towards others, being in the community, self-harm and making false allegations. Each risk assessment identified potential triggers, known behaviours and how best staff could support the person to reduce the risk or de-escalate the situation in the least restrictive way.

Regular health and safety checks were completed by staff. These included checks of fire extinguishers, infection control checks, control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) storage and fire doors. Staff and the manager had carried our regular fire drills. People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place, which included details of how each person responds to the fire alarm, people’s mobility and support needs to evacuate safely. People told us they took part in fire drills and understood how to exit the building in the event of a fire.

People, their relatives and staff told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and keep people safe. One relative told us “There is always enough staff to give [name] the attention they need.” We reviewed staff rotas, and observed that suitable numbers of staff were deployed at all times. The provider advised us they did not use agency staff, due to the high needs of the people living at the service, and the need for people to have continuity in their care. Should there be a need for temporary cover, the provider had the ability to share staff from one of their other local homes, which staff told us they liked. The service had one staffing vacancy; they were actively recruiting at the time of our inspection. The manager told us “They’re a very good staff team.”

Staff recruitment processes were followed, and recruitment systems were robust. The manager told us that people had been involved in the interviews of staff to ensure they were of the right character to support people with learning disabilities. We reviewed recruitment files for six staff working at the service, and observed that recruitment processes had been followed. Prior to commencing work, the provider had carried out all necessary recruitment checks. Each staff member had a disclosure and barring check (DBS) in place. The DBS helps employers make safe recruitment decisions and helps prevent unsuitable people from working with people who use care services. The provider had sought two references for each staff prior to them starting work, and explored any gaps in the staff members work history.

People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. One person was being supported regularly by staff with the administration of medicines. Staff were able to talk through the process of administration medicines with us. Staff would observe the person to con