The inspection took place on the 28 September 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

Ashfield House is situated in a residential area of New Milton. The service provides care and support for up to nine people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection the service was home to seven people. The home has a lounge, dining room; a large kitchen and a smaller kitchen where people could make themselves hot drinks for example. There is also a laundry and an activities room. There is a secure garden to the rear and parking at the front. People’s rooms were arranged over two floors with the upper floor being accessed via stairs. Some of the rooms were ensuite.

The service 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Mental capacity assessments and best interest’s consultations had not always been undertaken in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

Whilst the design and layout of the building was suitable to people’s needs some of the décor looked tired and worn and some of the furniture needed to be replaced and fixtures and fittings updated.

Supervision had not always been taking place on a regular basis, but this was an improving picture. Staff felt supported and received an appropriate induction and training which helped them to perform their role effectively.

Staff were trained in how to recognise and respond to abuse and understood their responsibility to report any concerns to their management team.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken which made sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people in the home. There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People’s medicines were managed safely. People had risk assessments and risk reduction measures were in place to help keep people safe.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and their care plans included information about their dietary needs and risks in relation to nutrition and hydration.

Where necessary staff had worked effectively with a range of other healthcare professionals to help ensure that people’s health care needs were met.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Where people’s liberty or freedoms were at risk of being restricted, the proper authorisations had been applied for.

The people we spoke with were all happy living at Ashfield house. Staff showed people kindness, patience and respect, were cheerful and motivating and the atmosphere was positive.

Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of the people they were supporting. Care records were person centred and helped staff provide care which was in keeping with people’s needs and wishes. People were supported to take part in a range of activities.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. There was a positive and person centred culture within the home. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service and to ensure people were receiving the best possible support.

We were assisted throughout this inspection by the home’s registered manager. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living at the home, most of whom had lived at the home for many years. We spoke with five people who lived at the home and joined with residents and staff for the midday meal. We also spoke with two members of staff.

The people who lived at the home were very positive about the way they were supported at Ashfield House. We saw that their needs and had been fully assessed with care plans put in place to inform staff on how to support people.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Here were robust recruitment procedures in place to make sure that appropriate staff were recruited to work at the home.

The home had systems in place to make sure that the quality of service was monitored.

We looked at care plans for three people who required varying degrees of support and spoke with two people. We observed people being supported by staff. We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and that their views, wishes and experiences were taken into account.

Two people told us they were supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them. One family member told us “I have a really good relationship with the staff and the manager. I can’t fault them”.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. One person told us “It’s good here. I like going out”. Individual needs of people had been assessed and reviewed. Care plans were personalised and produced in a format that was accessible to people.

We looked at safeguarding arrangements including staff training, talked to staff and people who used the service and reviewed care plans and incident records. We found that people were protected because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.

We looked at records of supervision and training, spoke with staff and observed practice. We found that people’s welfare needs were met by competent staff who were properly trained and supported.

The provider had in place effective systems system to assess and monitor the quality of service which sought people's views, and learnt from analysis of incidents.