Ashpark House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 11 people who require support regarding a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection 9 people were living at the service.

When we last visited the service it was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. There were sufficient numbers of care staff on shift with the correct skills and knowledge to keep people safe. There were appropriate arrangements in place for medicines to be stored and administered safely.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. Management and staff understood their responsibility in this area. Staff were committed to ensuring all decisions were made in people’s best interest.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Care plans were individual and contained information about how people preferred to communicate and their ability to make decisions.

People were encouraged to take part in activities that they enjoyed, and were supported to keep in contact with family members. When needed, they were supported to see health professionals and referrals were put through to ensure they had the appropriate care and treatment.

Staff and other professionals were complimentary about the management of the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people.

The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

We found that improvements had been made to ensure that the environment was homely and ensured people’s comfort. People using the service were happy to show us around their home and told us that they were pleased with the improvements being made to the interior décor. We saw that appropriate equipment was being installed to ensure that people could move around the service as they might wish without restrictions. We found that the manager had taken appropriate action to ensure that people using the service had had appropriate mental capacity assessments completed. We saw that action had been taken to ensure that staff were familiar with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

We spent time with all of the people using the service and spoke in more detail with two people to find out what it was like to live in Ashpark House. Both people told us that they felt safe, well cared for and happy living at the service.

We spoke with two staff who told us that recent training had made them feel empowered and committed to improving the service so that they were more responsive to the individual needs of the people living at Ashpark House. They told us that staff were willing to go the extra mile to make the necessary changes for people using the service to have a more independent lifestyle. People using the service and staff told us that the decorating programme had already improved the service, making it more homely and inviting.

We found that records relating to people who used the service provided an accurate reflection of their needs. Staff had received training and spoke knowledgably about the people they provided care and support to.

We found that staff lacked a general understanding about the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The service was not adhering to their own policies and procedures in relation to assessing people’s mental capacity. We found that further work was needed to ensure that the environment is homely and ensures people’s comfort. People’s ability to move around the service as they might wish needs to be properly assessed.

We spoke with two people to find out what it was like to live in Ashpark House. One person told us, “I am happy living here, I have my own room and I can do what I want to do”. They also told us that they were supported to go to church and meet with a network of friends in the local community. Another person spoken with was very complimentary about the service. They told us that they liked living at Ashpark House. This person also told us that they liked the staff and that the staff supported them go out to the shops most days to buy a newspaper. Both people told us that they liked the food and that they were able to choose what they wanted to eat.

Staff spoken with told us that they enjoyed working at Ashpark House. They told us that they felt supported in their roles and that they received training to ensure they had the relevant skills and qualifications to support the people using the service.

We found that records relating to people who used the service provided an accurate reflection of their needs. The environment and equipment provided was fit for purpose, however we had concerns that people were being unnecessarily deprived if their liberty due to level of security in the premises. Staff had received training and spoke knowledgably about the people they provided care and support to.

Some of the people living at Ashpark House were not able to communicate with us verbally and some chose not to talk with us. They shared their views through gestures, facial expressions and body language wherever possible. We saw people were relaxed and comfortable with staff and other people using the service.

Some people spoke with us generally about the things they enjoyed at Ashpark House. They told us about the things they liked to do and holidays they had enjoyed.

The inspection took place on 18 September 2015 and was unannounced. Ashpark provides accommodation and personal care for up to 11 people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. People who use the service may also have a physical disability.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 associate Regulations about how the service is run. The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This

ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLs and associated Codes of Practice.

People were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. There were sufficient numbers of care staff on shift with the correct skills and knowledge to keep people safe. There were appropriate arrangements in place for medicines to be stored and administered safely.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Their care plans were individual and contained information about how they preferred to communicate and their ability to make decisions.

People were encouraged to take part in activities that they enjoyed, and were supported to keep in contact with family members. When needed, they were supported to see health professionals and referrals were put through to ensure they had the appropriate care and treatment.

Relatives and staff were complimentary about the management of the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service.

The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.