This inspection took place on the 11 April 2018 and was announced.

Adolphus Care provides support to people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. The service supports people living in six ‘supported living’ settings so people can be as independent as possible. People’s care and housing were provided under separate contractual agreements. Hibiscus Properties Limited provided the housing and maintenance and Adolphus Care provided the care and support to people using the service. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Not everyone using Adolphus Care received a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ and help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people do receive this service, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection only one person was receiving support with a regulated activity, but we also looked at the wider social care provision at the service.

At our last inspection in April 2016 we rated the service good overall but requires improvement in Well Led because a registered manager was not in post. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good, with the key question ‘Is the service Well Led?’ also being rated good, as although the previous registered manager had left the service in January 2018, the current manager was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. 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.

During the inspection we found there was not a registered manager in post but the manager had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager.

The provider had procedures in place to protect people from abuse. Support workers we spoke with knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. People had risk assessments and management plans in place to minimise risks and incidents were recorded appropriately.

Support workers had up to date relevant training, supervision and annual appraisals to develop the necessary skills to support people using the service. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

Medicines were managed safely and support workers had appropriate training and competency assessments.

Support workers had completed training in infection control and used appropriate protective equipment so they could reduce infections and cross contamination.

People’s needs were assessed prior to moving to the service. Dietary and health needs were assessed and recorded so these could be met.

Care plans provided appropriate information to meet people's day-to-day health needs and people were supported to access healthcare services appropriately.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and support workers were responsive to individual needs and preferences. However the provider had not specifically discussed end of life wishes with people, but agreed to do so as part of future care planning.

We observed people were treated with respect, were involved in planning their care through one to one sessions and could make day to day decisions. Care plans contained the required information to give support workers guidelines to care for people in their preferred manner.

There was a complaints procedure in place, and people told us they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.

Feedback indicated the manager fostered an open culture and positive communication. People using the service and support workers told us the manager was available and listened to them.

The service had systems in place t

The inspection took place on 27 and 28 April 2016 and the first day was unannounced. The last inspection of the service took place on 11 September 2013 when all the standards were met.

Adolphus Care provides supported living for twelve adults with various learning disabilities including autism, disabilities acquired through brain injury and for people with dual mental health / learning disability diagnosis. Supported living is accommodation where people have their own tenancies. Some people had self-contained accommodation and other people lived in shared accommodation. The service has capacity for 16 people in supported living. At the time of our inspection, 12 people were living in five supported living houses.

There was not a registered manager in post. The provider was in the process of making an application to become the registered manager until the post was recruited to permanently. 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.

Safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures were in place. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training and were able to recognise signs of abuse.

People who used the service had risk assessments to minimise risk and to support them to take positive risks around their chosen activities.

The provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure suitable staff were employed to work with vulnerable people.

Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed and had relevant training to meet the needs of people who used the service.

The service was person centred and we saw evidence that people who used the service were involved in decision making and contributed to their care plans. People were supported to follow their interests.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty requirement that people had the right to make choices about their care.

People were supported to have access to healthcare services.

Staff were caring and listened to people who used the service.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected.

People knew how to make a complaint.

People who used the service, staff and relatives told us the managers were approachable and they could raise concerns with them.

There were data management systems in place to monitor and improve service delivery.

During our inspection we visited two houses where people using the service lived and spoke with three of them. We spoke with the provider, the manager and two members of staff. We viewed four care records and six staff files. The people we spoke with told us that they were satisfied with the support and care provided. One person said "I am very happy living here, they look after me and support me to be as independent as possible."

People were supported to be independent and lead a normal life. They were encouraged to be part of the community and participate in activities of their choice. People's care plans were personalised and had been developed to meet their assessed needs.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff had completed safeguarding training and staff were aware of the steps to take if they had any suspicions of abuse.

Staff received appropriate professional development. The provider had an induction programme for new members of staff and regular supervision and training.

There were arrangements in place to get people's views of the quality of the service through regular online surveys and annual satisfaction questionnaires. People's feedback had been taken into consideration and action taken to address any concerns.

During our inspection of Adolphus Care there were eight people who were using the service living across four separate homes. On the day of the inspection we visited the registered office and two of the homes where people lived.

We spoke on the telephone with two people using the service as none of them were present during our inspection and three staff members. People told us that they were happy with the support they received from the agency and staff .All people told us that staff respected them, involved them in as much activity as possible and allowed their independence. Comments given included, “they respect me”, “l make my choices” and, “ l am supported by staff and they are very good “.