The inspection took place on 03 and 04 September 2018. This inspection was unannounced. Care Management Group – 16 Kings Road is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to six people. The home specialises in the care of people with a learning disability. The service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. Care Management Group -16 Kings Road does not provide nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. It is in Lee-on Solent, close to local amenities. Accommodation is provided over two floors. At the time of our visit six people lived at the home.

At the time of our inspection the service had a new manager who had been in post since 13 July 2018, they were in the process of registering with CQC to become the 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. Throughout this report we refer to this person as the manager.

Records were not always accurate and did not consistently provide staff with enough guidance to meet people’s needs. Whilst there was a range of systems in place to assess monitor the quality of service, they were not always effective in identifying and driving improvement.

We have made a recommendation about the provider’s governance framework and reviewing and evaluating all documentation.

People were supported to maintain good health and were involved in decisions about their health. They were provided with personalised care and support. Staff had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles effectively and their training was updated annually. People were very positive about the care they received.

Risks to people and staff safety were identified. Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and knew how to keep people safe and report concerns. Staff had a good understanding of systems in place to manage medicines. People's medicines were safely managed. There were thorough recruitment checks completed to help ensure suitable staff were employed to care and support people. There was sufficient staff available to ensure people's wellbeing, safety and security was protected.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. People were supported by staff who had the skills and training to meet their needs. The manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS however, staff did not always understand their responsibilities in relation to the MCA.

People's independence was promoted and support workers encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and their human rights. People were encouraged and enabled to be involved as much as they were able in making decisions about how to meet their needs.

There were regular opportunities for people and staff to feedback any concerns at peoples one to one meetings; house meetings, staff meetings and supervision meetings. Records showed these were open discussions. Feedback was consistently positive, with many complimentary comments about the support provided, the staff and the overall service.

People were supported to take part in activities that they enjoyed. Arrangements were in place to obtain the views of people and their relatives and a complaints procedure was available for people and their relatives to use if they had the need.

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the organis

We spoke to two people during the inspection. We also observed people and staff interacting. We joined people and staff for the early evening meal. Communication with people was limited due to their needs so we spoke to two relatives of people to ask their views on the service provided by the home. We also spoke to a health and social care professional about the service provided by the home.

People told us they liked living at the home. Relatives said the home provided a good standard of care. Both relatives said their relative living at the home had developed emotionally and that their behaviour was calmer. Relatives said the staff treated people well and that they were kept informed of any relevant incidents or developments.

We saw the home used innovative methods of communicating with people about activities they would like to do as well as for addressing behaviour and for raising any concerns people had. These included the use of communication activity plans and pictorial devices where people could remove and insert relevant photographs to say what they wanted. People also had access to tablet computers for aiding communication and for strategies about their behaviour.

We saw that each person’s needs were assessed and there were comprehensive care plans for personal care, medicines, behaviour and activities. People were supported to develop independent living skills and attended a range of community facilities.

Staff were supported to attend relevant training courses. We saw that newly appointed staff received an induction to prepare them for the job.

The home had a number of ways for monitoring the quality of the service it provided. These included regular checks on the standard of care, seeking people’s views about the service they received and reviews of any incidents in the home.

People told us they were happy living at 16 Kings Road. They said they liked the staff who worked in the home and the staff always offered them choices. Staff told us they would only ever encourage someone to be independent and would always respect the person's choice.

Assessments had been completed involving a range of professionals. Support plans had been developed with the person and covered all aspects of their daily living. People were involved in a wide range of activates which they enjoyed.

People told us they had been involved in the decor of the home and felt the home offered them a pleasant environment. All areas of the home were clean and well furnished.

People told us they liked the staff and knew them well. We were told there is always enough staff on duty to ensure people's needs are met.

The manager was able to show us a clear recording of any complaint made and what action had been taken. Each person had details of how to make a complaint.

Some of the people using the service were not able to verbally communicate with us. We spent time during our visit observing the care and support being given and how staff interacted with people. We saw that staff communicated well with people using the service and promoted an inclusive, supportive environment.

A person told us how staff explained the support options that were available and helped them to make decisions. Another person used a communication board with pictures and symbols to inform staff of their wishes and choices. People we spoke with were aware that the service had carried out an assessment of their needs. They talked to us about their care and support plan and how staff involved them at each stage of the process, including regular reviews.

They said they felt safe living in the home and that the staff understood their needs and wishes and supported them to do things independently. They told us about how they were encouraged to take part in the daily running of the service.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an unannounced inspection and took place on 15 and 30 July 2014.

Care Management Group Limited is a national provider of services for people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and mental health needs. There is support to the registered manager and staff from a regional management team and a team of trainers. This service is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to six people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were six people aged 19 to 43 years living at the service who had a range of learning disabilities. The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

We found that staff were skilled in communicating with people and showed warmth towards the people they provided care to. Staff used innovative communication methods to gain people’s views and to find out what people wanted. These included the use of pictorial cards and tablet computer programmes which helped people to communicate. People had regular meetings with their designated member of staff called a ‘keyworker’ to review their needs and preferences. People who used the service, and their relatives, told us the staff treated people well and provided a good standard of care.

People were supported to attend a range of educational and occupational activities as well as being able to develop their own independent living skills. Staff supported people to undertake a choice of leisure activities within the home and in the community.

People’s needs were comprehensively assessed and care plans gave clear guidance on how people were to be supported. Care was personalised so that each person’s support reflected their preferences.

The registered manager and staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the procedures they needed to follow where people were unable to consent to care and treatment.

There was a good emphasis by the registered manager and staff on protecting people from possible harm. Staff knew how to report any concerns about people’s welfare to the appropriate authorities. People were provided with information in an easy to read format and were aware they had a named staff member they felt most at ease raising any concerns with.

Staff had a thorough knowledge about people’s needs and were trained in a range of relevant subjects so they provided safe and effective care. People and staff had a rapport so people were comfortable with staff and enjoyed the company of staff. Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people’s needs.

The home was well led with systems to check that the care of people was effective, the staffing levels sufficient, and staff trained so they had the skills to provide safe care. The views of people who lived at the service were sought and the provider empowered people to be involved in making decisions about how the home was decorated and furnished as well as choosing the meals. People were also involved in the recruitment of staff.