We inspected the service on 10 May 2018. We contacted the provider 24 hours prior to our inspection to ensure someone would be at the service when we visited. Beechwood House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Beechwood House accommodates up to 10 people and is designed to meet the needs of people with a learning disability. On the day of our inspection 10 people were using the service.

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

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

This was the first inspection at this location under the provider's current registration.

At this inspection we found that the service had not notified CQC of some incidents which had taken place at the service as required by law. We found that incidents were responded to in relation to keeping people safe but that some further improvement was needed to monitor incidents and take appropriate action. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff were trained in this area of care and knew how to keep people safe.

Care and support plans contained relevant and up-to-date information, people's risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and updated and recorded the current risks associated with the delivery of people's care and support.

There were enough staff at the service to safely meet people's needs. Staff were safely recruited and supported in their roles and appropriate and relevant training was delivered to staff and regularly reviewed and updated.

People felt safe at the service with the staff who supported them and were protected against the risk of infection as we found the service to be clean and hygienic. People received their medicines safely and there were plans in place for any potential emergency situations.

The provider was following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and decisions had been made in consultation with people's representatives and documented as best interest decisions.

We found that people received care and support to meet their individual needs and that there was a culture of inclusion at the service. People's views were listened to and respected and people were involved in the day to day running of the service. People could spend their time as they chose and were part of the wider community. We found that people took part in activities both within the home and outside it and that this was actively encouraged by the service to ensure people lived meaningful lives and maintained their independence.

People's nutritional risks were assessed and planned for and people had a choice in what they had to eat and drink. People had access to various healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

People felt they could approach the management of the service should they need to raise any issues. Staff felt supported and were generally happy in their roles.

There were systems in place to monitor the service on an on-going basis and assess the quality of care and support being delivered.