Care Management Group 59 Bury Road is a residential care home which is registered to provide support and accommodation for up to six people living with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Nursing care is not provided. On the day of our visit there were six people living at the home.

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.

People told us they felt safe and secure and relatives had no concerns about safety at the home. Staff understood local safeguarding procedures. They knew what action to take if they were concerned that someone was at risk of abuse. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and reviewed. Medicines were managed safely.

Thorough recruitment processes were in place for newly appointed staff to check they were suitable to work with people. Staffing numbers were maintained at a level to meet people’s needs safely.

Staff received regular training and there were opportunities for them to study for additional qualifications. Staff were supported by the management through supervision and appraisal. Team meetings were held and staff had regular communication with each other at handover meetings which took place between each shift.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS are used when it is necessary to restrict the liberty of those without capacity to consent for their own safety. Two people living at the home who were currently subject to DoLS. We found the registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. We found the provider to be meeting the requirements of DoLS. People were generally able to make day to day decisions for themselves. The registered manager and staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) regarding best interests decisions should anyone be deemed to lack capacity.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy diet. They had access to healthcare professionals. People’s rooms were decorated in line with their personal preferences.

Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and these were communicated to staff in a variety of ways – verbally, through physical gestures or body language. Staff took time to engage with people, providing reassurance and support. People were involved in decisions about their care as much as they were able andtheir privacy and dignity was respected and promoted. Staff understood how to care for people in a sensitive way.

Care plans provided information about people in a person-centred way. People were involved as much as possible in planning their care. People’s personal histories had been recorded and their preferences, likes and dislikes were documented so that staff knew how people wished to be supported. The registered manager and staff were flexible and responsive to people's individual preferences and ensured people were supported to live the life they wanted. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and to participate in activities that interested them. There was a variety of activities and outings on offer which people could choose to do. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s complaints procedure.

The service was well led. The registered manager operated an open door policy and welcomed feedback on any aspect of the service. There were regular staff meetings and feedback was sought on the quality of the service provided. People and staff were able to influence the running of the service and co

During our visit we spoke with the manager, deputy manager and two other members of staff. We also spoke with three people using the service and two relatives. We reviewed two care plans and three staff personnel files.

One person using the service told us they were 'very happy' living at the home. The relatives we spoke with told us they were 'more than happy with the care' and that their overall impression was that 'the care was very good and the staff knew what they were doing'.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There was an effective complaints system available.

People using the service told us that they were happy with the care and support they received and they were positive about the manager and staff team. Those people who did not use verbal communication showed us that they were happy through signing. There was a calm and supportive atmosphere in the home.

Comments from people included. “I can go to the shops and out for meals. I go to bed when I want to. They are helping me find a new club to go to.”

For each person living in the home there was a detailed plan of care that included people’s individual needs and wishes and also detailed people's physical and emotional healthcare needs.

In order to meet individual needs, the home’s staff worked with a variety of healthcare professionals including learning disability teams. We were shown that advocates and specialist consultants were used where appropriate.

People were protected from risk of abuse or harm by there being safeguarding polices and procedures in place and by staff knowing how and when to use them.

We saw that there was a caring and experienced staff team and that staff were well supported and trained to undertake their roles.

People were positive about the manager and staff team and said that they were kind and supportive

There were quality audits undertaken to ensure that the home was kept under review. Records showed us that families and professionals involved in people’s care were consulted. Outcomes from the last audits were positive.

During this visit we spoke with the Registered Manager, the Deputy Manager and three members of staff. Not all of the people using the service were able to verbally communicate with us. We therefore spent time during our visit observing the care and support being given and how staff interacted with people.

We saw how some people communicated through sign language and pictures, rather than verbally, and how they were supported to be involved in activity planning. We observed staff supporting people in their daily routines and activities, including one-to-one support for community involvement and preparing food and drinks. Staff communicated effectively with people using the service and supported them in ways that promoted their independence and individuality.

A person we spoke with confirmed that they were getting the care and support they needed and said that staff treated them well. They told us that staff respected their choices and that they were supported and enabled to do things for themselves. They said that they were involved in their care planning with their key worker.

We observed that people had staff support when they asked for or required it. People were encouraged to take part in the daily routines of the home and that staff listened to what they said and responded appropriately.