Acacia House - Peterborough is a care home for a maximum number of five younger adults with autism and learning disabilities. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care. It does not provide nursing care. The service offers accommodation over one floor, with a communal lounge, dining room, kitchen and secure garden for people and their visitors to use. There are five single occupancy bedrooms with ensuite facilities. The service was fully occupied when we inspected it.

This inspection was carried out on 22 February 2017. It was an announced inspection and was undertaken by one inspector. At the last inspection on 14 October 2014, the service was rated as ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good.’

At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in place. However, they were not available during this inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that people’s rights were being protected as DoLS applications had been submitted to the authorising agencies. People were supported to have the most choice possible and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way.

People had health, care, and support plans in place which took account of their needs. These recorded people’s individual choices, their likes and dislikes and any assistance they required. Risks to people who lived at the service were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to minimise these risks and enable people to live as independent and safe life as possible.

We saw that people who lived at the service were assisted by staff in a way that supported their safety and they were treated with respect. Staff assisted people in a caring and warm manner. Staff promoted people’s choices.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the registered manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge by way of supervision, observations, and appraisals. Staff were trained to provide safe and effective care which met people’s individual needs and knew people’s care requirements well. Staff had the necessary training and used recognised techniques to lessen people’s anxiety.

Relatives were able to raise any suggestions or concerns they might have with the registered manager and team of staff. They said that they felt listened to as communication with the registered manager and staff team was good.

Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. We found that people who lived at the service and their relatives were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided.

This inspection was carried out on 14 October 2014. It was an announced inspection and was undertaken by one inspector. We gave the provider and staff 24 hours notice that we would be visiting. This was because the service was small and people were often out attending college or taking part in social interests and hobbies. We needed to be sure that they would be in. The last inspection took place on 19 August 2013, during which, we found the regulations were being met.

Acacia House is a registered care home for a maximum number of five people with autism and learning disabilities. It does not provide nursing care. The home offers accommodation over one floor. There are five single occupancy bedrooms with ensuite facilities. The service was fully occupied when we inspected it.

At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that people’s rights were being protected as DoLS applications were in progress and were being submitted to the authorising agencies.

We saw that people who lived in the home were assisted by staff in a way that supported their safety and that they were treated with respect. People had health care and support plans in place which took account of their needs. These plans recorded for staff people’s individual choices, their likes and dislikes and any assistance they required. Risks to people who lived in the home were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to minimise these risks and enable people to live as safe and independent life as possible.

We saw that staff cared for people in a warm and caring manner. We saw staff using distraction as a technique to calm people down when anxious, as documented within people’s care and support plans. These techniques helped people to carry on with their day in a more relaxed manner.

Staff were trained to provide effective and safe care which met people’s individual needs and wishes. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge by way of regular supervision, appraisals and training.

Relatives we spoke with told us they were able to raise any suggestions or concerns they might have with the manager. They said that they felt listened to as communication with the manager was good.

Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. We found that people who lived in the home and their relatives were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided.

Our review of records and observations evidenced to us that people were only provided with care and support, including medicines administration that they had provided a valid consent and agreement to. Staff who we spoke with understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and where a decision about people’s care was in their best interests.

Our review of people's plans of care demonstrated to us that people's care was person centred and based upon their most up-to-date needs. We saw from our observations that people were spoken to with genuine warmth and respect. We also saw that everyone appeared happy and were engaged in various activities throughout our inspection visit.

We saw from our review of records that the provider had arrangements in place to protect the health, safety and welfare of service users where responsibility for the care of service users was shared or transferred to others.

Staff were supported to gain additional healthcare qualifications. Staff were supervised regularly and provided with support and guidance by the manager and provider to maintain a good standard of care.

The provider used a variety of methods to measure people's satisfaction with the quality of care and support they received at the service. The provider also used the same methods to review the experience of people who used their service who received external care and support, such as day services or community activities.

During our visit on the 15 October 2012 we spent time observing people using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not comment. We observed one group of five people for 30 minutes.

We saw that staff members took time to understand what people were communicating in the way that people had requested. It was clear from our observations that the staff knew each person well enough to be able to provide support in a way that the person easily understood. People were praised in a respectful manner and provided with reassurance where this was required.

One relative who we spoke with said, "The manager keeps me informed of anything that affects my son's health, even if this late at night."

We noted that each person had their opinions respected and were included in the general conversations that occurred. We saw that staff responded well to the needs of people, gave them individual attention, listened and spoke to them in a positive manner and encouraged them to make choices.

Staff were providing with training and information that ensured people were protected from abuse.

We looked at records for safety checks for items such as gas, water and electrical safety and found that these were all satisfactory and up to date.