We carried out an inspection of Burnley Pendle & Rossendale Short Break Services (Haddon House) on 14, 15, 19 and 22 September 2016. The first day was unannounced. On the 19 and 22 September we spoke with relatives/carers via telephone to gain their views of the service. We last inspected the home on 6 May 2014 and found the service was meeting the regulations that were applicable at that time.

Burnley Pendle & Rossendale Short Break Services (Haddon House) is a purpose built home situated in Burnley. The home provides care and support for up to 6 people with a learning disability and or physical disability in single occupancy rooms. Bedrooms were spacious and had en suite facilities. There were various aids to support people with mobility difficulties such as overhead tracking, specialist bathing facilities, dining space for wheelchairs and beds specific to people’s needs. All areas were tastefully decorated and furnished to a high standard. There were 5 people accommodated in the home at the time of the inspection.

The service was managed by 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During this inspection we found the service was meeting the current regulations.

The service provided an outstanding level of care and support that placed people at the heart of their care and promoted their right to be self-determining in how they lived their lives. All the people, their relatives, visiting professionals and staff we spoke with had nothing but praise for the service and the excellent quality of life people experienced. People’s rights to privacy, dignity, and freedom of choice were firmly embedded into the culture of the home and people’s diversity was embraced.

People living in the home and their relatives described the service as excellent. They said there was and never had been any cause for concern in how people were treated. Staff were described as having ‘special qualities’, ‘professional’, ‘caring and understanding’.

There was sufficient staff who had been carefully recruited and matched directly with people to ensure people received a personal service.

Safeguarding referral procedures were in place and staff had a good understanding around recognising the signs of abuse and had undertaken safeguarding training. Staff were clear about their responsibilities for reporting incidents in line with local guidance.

Risks to people’s health, welfare and safety were managed very well. Risk assessments were thorough and informed staff of the actions to take to support people safely. Staff fully understood how people with limited or no use of words communicated distress in different situations or circumstances and had been trained in positive behaviour support.

There were appropriate arrangements in place in relation to the safe storage, receipt, administration and disposal of medicines. Staff responsible for administering medicines had been trained.

Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that people’s rights were protected where they were unable to make decisions for themselves. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people and the principles of best interest decisions. People with limited use of words and where English was not their first language, were supported very well through preferred communication methods, such as interpreters, body language, and use of pictorial signs to express their wishes and choices. Routine choices such as preferred daily routines and level of support from staff for personal care was acknowledged and respected.

All people we spoke with were very positive about staff knowledge and skills and felt their needs were b

The inspection was undertaken by the lead Inspector for the service. We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help us answer our five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection and discussions with people who used the service. We also spoke with the team leader, staff members and we looked at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Comments made to us included, “I feel safe because there is always someone around if I need them” and “I feel safe here because the staff are kind and talk to me.” Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to record and review complaints, accidents and incidents. This should help reduce the risk to people and help the service to continually improve.

There were policies in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood the need to seek consent from people before they provided any care. This should help ensure people’s rights were safeguarded.

Recruitment procedures were safe and thorough. Staff were supported to gain appropriate skills and knowledge for their role. This should help ensure people received safe and appropriate care.

Is the service effective?

The two people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received and their needs had been met. It was clear from our observations and discussions with staff that they knew people well and had a good understanding of their care and support needs.Staff had received training to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and care plans amended to reflect people’s changing needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed staff took care to support and protect people.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Records we looked at showed us people had the opportunity to meet with their key worker to review their care.

Systems were in place to ensure staff had access to up to date information regarding people’s needs. This should help ensure they were supported to respond appropriately to any changes to a person’s condition.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies to make sure people received care in a joined up way. This information helped to ensure the person was provided with the care they required when they were away from the home.

Quality assurance processes were in place in the home. Records we looked at showed us people had completed a satisfaction survey. People who used the service were regularly asked their opinion about the service. Regular meetings were held with staff. These provided the opportunity for staff to discuss any concerns or practice issues in the home.

There was clear sensitive communications between the staff and people using the service, with the staff taking time to listen and wait for responses during conversations. We saw that staff treated people with respect and communicated with them regularly.

We reviewed information about two people's care and found that their care needs were being planned for. We found that the staff understood people's care needs and how to protect them from risk and harm.

Records we looked at showed people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with the individual care plan. We found that the care plans were accompanied by risk assessments and risk management plans to ensure people were protected from unsafe care practices.

We found that there were effective systems in place for the safe storage and administration of medicines.

We saw that there were effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure that people who used the service were protected from harm through good staff recruitment.

People told us they were satisfied with the quality of care and support they received. We were told the staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people and that the staff were professional, caring and friendly.

One of the people we spoke with made various positive comments about the staff team: "They have gone out of their way to make my relative's life better" and "Nothing is too much trouble for the staff."

People were provided with care plans that are regularly reviewed so that people have the most appropriate support to meet their needs and if these needs change, the support they receive is amended to reflect those needs.

People said they felt safe living in the home and were able to discuss concerns or issues with the staff if they wished to. We saw that the people using the service are involved in planning their care and are in control of how their support is provided for them. Risk assessments are reviewed regularly in respect of the person's needs, the environment and behaviour so that service users and staff are safeguarded.