The inspection took place on 13 June 2018 and was announced. At our last inspection on 8 May 2015, we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and 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.

Ashgate House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Ashgate House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 10 people in one two-storey building. At the time of our inspection there were nine adults living at the home and one person on respite care, all of whom had a learning disability. The home is managed and run by Allied Care Limited, a large organisation who owns services throughout the UK.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. “People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Checks were carried out during the recruitment process to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

There were arrangements in place for the safe management of people’s medicines and regular checks were undertaken.

The service was clean and had effective systems to protect people by the prevention and control of infection.

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.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities and had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People’s nutritional and healthcare needs had been assessed and were met.

People were supported by staff who were suitably trained, supervised and appraised.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Care plans addressed each person’s individual needs, including what was important to them, and how they wanted to be supported.

People were involved in undertaking activities of their choice. People were cared for in a way that took account of their diversity, values and human rights.

Where appropriate, people’s end of life wishes were discussed and recorded.

People living at the home, their relatives and stakeholders told us that the management team was approachable and supportive. People and their relatives were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

The registered manager kept themselves informed of developments within the social care sector and cascaded important information to the rest of the staff team. This helped ensure that staff were informed and felt valued.

People we spoke with expressed satisfaction with the care and support provided and said staff knew how to help them. We found care plans and risk assessments in place which set out how to meet people's needs, for example in relation to personal care. People told us the service supported them to access health care professionals. One said “when my eyes hurt I get it done” when asked if they ever had an eye test. We found that medications were appropriately administered and recorded.

People told us they believed there were enough staff working at the service, and that staff provided support in a prompt manner. One person said “we shout out and they (staff) come quickly.” We observed that staff were not rushed when carrying out their duties, and staff told us they had enough time to do their job properly.

People we spoke with told us they had not had to make a complaint. However, they said they knew who they to complain to if they wanted. One said “I would tell (my keyworker).” We found that the service had a complaints procedure in place, although the manager told us no complaints had been made in the past two years.

On the day of our visit there were eight people using the service and five staff. We were able to speak to all the staff and one person. We were able to communicate with the other people using communication aids and by observation.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and dignity. People we spoke with told us that the staff were kind and respected their privacy. We observed staff supporting people in a friendly and professional way and saw that people were offered a choice with regard to menus, activities and care preferences.

People were positive about the care and treatment they received at the home. Records showed us that people who use this service had good access to a range of health professionals.

We saw that people who used this service felt safe. Staff that we spoke to had a clear understanding of safeguarding and in issues concerning people's mental capacity to make decisions.

We looked at staff files and saw that all staff had been police checked and that appropriate references had been obtained and employment checks carried out for all staff.

Policies and procedures were comprehensive and were regularly reviewed. Health and safety records were up to date and risk assessments had been completed in all appropriate areas.

This unannounced inspection took place on 8 and 11 May 2015.

Ashgate House is a ten bed service providing support and accommodation to people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection ten people were living there. It is a large house in a residential area close to public transport and other services. The house has special adaptations to the bath and shower rooms. There is a lift to all the floors. The home is therefore accessible for people with physical disabilities or mobility problems. People live in a clean and safe environment that is suitable for their needs.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People were safe at the service. They were supported by kind, caring staff who treated them with respect. Systems were in place to minimise risk and to ensure that people were supported as safely as possible.

Staff were attentive and supportive. They engaged with people and chatted and laughed with them throughout the day.

People were cared for by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their assessed needs, preferences and choices and to provide an effective service.

People were supported to make choices about what they did and what happened to them. They took part in activities of their choice in the community and in the service.

The staff team worked closely with other professionals to ensure that people were supported to receive the healthcare that they needed.

Staff had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is where a person can be deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or for their own safety. Staff were aware that on occasions this was necessary. We saw that this was thought to be necessary for some people living at the service to keep them safe.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They told us that they liked the food.

Staff received the support and training they needed to carry out their role and provide a safe and appropriate service that met people’s needs.

The provider and the management team monitored the quality of service provided to ensure that people received a safe and effective service that met their needs.