104 Bargery Road provides care and accommodation to five people living with learning difficulties. There were five people using the service when we visited. At our inspection of the service on 13 March 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection they remained Good.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were enough staff on each shift to support people. People told us they received the support they needed from staff to attend appointments and participate in activities. People received their medicines as prescribed. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way including storing, administering and recording of medicines administered. Staff understood how to respond if they suspected people were being abused. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults at risk. Risks to people and their well-being were managed appropriately. People had up to date risk assessments and management plans in place to guide staff in supporting people safely.

The registered manager supported staff well through an effective programme of training, supervision and appraisal. People had access to the healthcare services they required to maintain their health. People enjoyed the food and drink provided which met their preferences. The registered manager made applications to the local authority for authorisations to deprive people of their liberty appropriately in a lawful way. Staff were aware of the conditions of people’s DoLS which they followed so they acted in line with DoLS legislation. DoLS provides a process to make sure that people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way, when it is in their best interests and there is no other way to look after them.

Staff treated people with dignity, and respect. Staff catered for people's ethnic and cultural needs. People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. People were supported to maintain relationships that mattered to them. People were supported to practice their religious beliefs. People were supported to exercise their political views and to take part in democratic processes.

People received care and support tailored to meet their individual needs. Care plans detailed people’s preferences, needs and backgrounds. They provided sufficient information to enable staff support people. Staff understood the needs of people they supported. A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to complain. People took part in a range of activities they enjoyed.

There was clear and visible leadership in the service. Staff and the registered manager understood their role and responsibilities. The provider had a range of audits in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. The registered manager involved people and staff in the running of the service. The registered manager complied with their statutory responsibility to submit notifications to the CQC as required.

This unannounced inspection took place 13 March 2015. The last inspection of the service was on 25 October 2013. We found the service met all the regulations we looked at.

The service provides care and accommodation to five people with learning difficulties. The service had a registered manager who has been in post for several years. 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.

People told us they liked living at the service. They said staff treated them with respect. Care records confirmed that people had been given appropriate support and care. Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures was in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Staff told us they were supported to do their jobs effectively. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Their individual needs had been assessed and their support planned and delivered in accordance to their wishes. People were involved in reviewing their support to ensure it was effective. Risks to people were assessed and management plan put in place to ensure that people were protected from risks associated with their support and care.

People received their medicines safely and were supported to maintain good health. The service worked effectively with other health and social care professionals including the community mental health team (CMHT). People were supported to attend their health appointments.

People’s choices and decisions were respected. People consented to their care and support before it was delivered. The service understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to ensure that best interests’ decisions were made for those who lacked the mental capacity to make such decisions; and people were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

People were provided with a choice of food, and were supported to eat when required.

People were encouraged to follow interests and develop new skills. There were a range of activities which took place. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

The service held regular meetings with people to gather their views about the service provided and to consult with them about various matters. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service.

The provider carried out regular audits of the service. Recommendations to develop the service were made and these were followed up to ensure people’s experience of the service was improved.

The carpet, furniture and decoration throughout the home looked wore out and tired. The provider showed us a work plan to improve the general maintenance and redecoration throughout the home.

Staff ensured people gave their consent to the support offered. We spoke with one person who confirmed that staff included them in decisions about their daily lives.

Up to date, individual care plans were in place for people who used the service which addressed their care and support needs and protected them from risks. One person told us that they met periodically with the staff member assigned as their key worker to review their personal care plan and updated the plan as necessary with their agreement. We saw evidence of this in people’s care records.

We observed that staff treated people they were supporting with kindness and compassion and were responsive to their needs.

People we spoke with said they felt safe and secure in the home. They told us that they could call staff at any time if they needed support and the manager was readily available if they wanted to see her. Prior to the inspection, concerns were drawn to our attention about the management of people’s finances at the service. However, we were assured by the local authority commissioners that following a financial audit people’s financial interests were properly safeguarded.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and people were supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. One person using the service told us, "The staff here are good to me and helped me adjust to the move from living on my own."

There were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure incidents were reported to the Care Quality Commission under the relevant regulations.

People spoke well of the staff at Bargery Road. We observed that staff interactions with residents were warm, friendly and supportive. Staff members were on hand to help and support people to meet their everyday needs.

People's bedrooms had suitable furniture and allowed them to have their own personalised and private spaces.

People were supported to take their medication safely.

The provider had suitable arrangements in place to ensure that people were protected from the risks of abuse. Incidents were recorded and appropriate actions were taken in response to them.

However, we found that some of the incidents recorded were reportable to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), but that we had not been notified when they occurred.