We carried out the unannounced comprehensive inspection of Chylidn on 30 November 2016. A previous comprehensive inspection of the service was completed on 2 December 2015found breaches of the regulations in relation to staff support, record keeping and risk management. The provider subsequently produced an action plan setting out how they intended to ensure the service became compliant with the regulations. This inspection was completed to check the planned action had been successful. In addition, in June 2016 a focused inspection of the service was completed to investigate concerns we had received in relation staffing levels, training and the management of the service. The findings of both these previous inspection can be viewed by selecting the 'all reports' link for Chylidn on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Chylidn provides care and accommodation for up to five people who have autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of the inspection four people were living at the service.

During our previous inspection we found that people’s needs were not being met and some people’s autonomy was restricted due to adverse interactions between people living in the service.

At this inspection we found the provider had taken significant action to address and resolve this issue. A new self-contained flat had been created for one person who particularly valued personal space. During this inspection we found that people were now more comfortable and relaxed. Staff told us, “I do think the changes mean it works a lot better for [everyone]. [People] don’t have to be worried about anything now.”

People relative’s told us, “I think [My relative] is safe and well looked after” while staff said, “People are safe and seem to be happy.” Staff understood there role in protecting people from abuse and avoidable harm and records showed all necessary pre-employment checks had been completed to ensure people’s safety.

Risk were managed appropriately to ensure people’s safety while enabling each person to live full and active lives. Where accidents or incidents occurred these were fully investigated. Where necessary people’s care plans were updated with additional guidance on how to protect the person for any additional risks identified during the incident investigation process.

On the day of our inspection the service was short staffed because a member of staff had become unwell. Staff rotas and daily care records showed this was unusual and that the service was normally fully staffed. Staff confirmed the service was normally staffed at safe levels and told us, “Staffing levels have got a lot better” and “Staffing levels have been great, there is the odd bit of sickness but it is not a problem here.”

All new staff received two weeks of formal training before they began working in the service and records showed established staff received regular training updates. Staff said, “The training was very useful, I think it was pretty good” and “All my training, except food hygiene and infection control, is up to date and those two are booked in.”

In December 2015 we found that staff had not received regular supervision. At this inspection staff told us they were well supported by the registered manager. Staff had received regular formal supervision and annual performance appraisals were due to be reintroduced.

Managers and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and appropriate applications had been made to the local authority for the authorisation of potentially restrictive care plans.

Relatives told us, “The food is absolutely the tops” and we saw people were supported by staff to plan, shop for and prepare meals within the service.

Staff knew people well and understood how communicate effectively with the people they supported.

People’s care plans were detailed and informative. They provided staff with clear instructions on how to meet each person’s individual care and support needs. Staff told us, “All of th

We carried out a focused inspection at Chylidn on 02 June 2016, the inspection was unannounced. The previous inspection was an unannounced comprehensive inspection carried out on 2 December 2015. At that time we found breaches of the regulations in relation to staff support, record keeping and risk management. The provider subsequently sent us an action plan setting out what they intended to do to ensure they complied with the regulations. At our next comprehensive inspection we will check to see this has happened.

In May 2016 we received concerns in relation to staffing levels, staff training and the management of the service. As a result we carried out this focused inspection to look into those concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to those topics. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Chylidn on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Chylidn provides care and accommodation for up to five people who have autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of the inspection four people were living at the service.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people to take part in individual activities and carry out daily routines. Staff were experienced and had undertaken a thorough induction and training in areas identified as necessary for the service. Training in areas specific to people’s individual needs was not regularly updated. Staff received regular individual supervision sessions from their line managers.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. Mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings had taken place when necessary and were recorded as required. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to adopt healthy lifestyles and encouraged to eat healthily. However, staff told us the food budget was limited which meant people's choices were restricted but staff also told us people did not go hungry. We observed two people eating lunch and noted the food portions were good.

Staff were friendly and respectful in their approach to people. They demonstrated a concern for people’s well-being and a shared approach to support. Staff morale was good and staff told us things had improved recently. A system of core teams and key workers had been identified to help ensure support was consistent. Key workers have responsibility for overseeing an individuals plan of care. A core team is a group of care workers who are assigned to work with a specific individual for the majority of their time.

We inspected Chylidn on 2 December 2015, the inspection was unannounced. The service was last inspected in January 2014, we had no concerns at that time.

Chylidn provides care and accommodation for up to five people who have autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of the inspection five people were living at the service.

The registered manager had stepped down from the position the day before our inspection visit. 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. The service was being run by the deputy manager with the support of the divisional manager. The divisional manager told us they would be making arrangements to fill the role in the near future. The deputy manager had a good knowledge of the service and people’s needs.

This inspection was brought forward in response to information the Commission had received regarding staffing levels at Chylidn. On the day of the inspection we found there were sufficient staff on duty to support people to take part in individual activities. Although new staff had recently been recruited more experienced staff had left the organisation. This meant people with complex needs were being supported by an inexperienced team who lacked a comprehensive understanding of people’s needs. New employees were sometimes shadowing care workers with limited experience. There was no robust system of supervision or staff meetings in place to help ensure staff received the support necessary to fulfil their roles.

People living at the service had complex needs and these sometimes impacted negatively on each other. While this had been identified and strategies put in place to minimise the effect on people this had not prevented the incidents occurring. People’s autonomy within the service was affected as they were unable to access shared areas of the home as and when they wanted.

Recruitment practices helped ensure staff working in the home were fit and appropriate to work in the care sector. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse, and all were confident any concerns would be taken seriously.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. Mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings had taken place when necessary and were recorded as required. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Systems to record changes in people’s support needs and communicate them across the staff team were not robust. A recommendation by an external healthcare professional that one person visit a GP had not been recorded in the communication book. As a result the appointment had not been made leading to deterioration in the person’s health. Daily logs intended to record details of the care and support given to individuals contained gaps.

Staff were caring and respectful in their approach to people. They demonstrated a concern for people’s well-being and reassured anyone who became distressed or anxious. Throughout the inspection visit staff checked that people were happy to talk with us or show us their rooms.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We carried out this inspection in response to some information of concern we received in relation to staffing levels at Chylidn. The information provided indicated there were insufficient numbers of staff available at the home to meet people's assessed care needs. As a result of this information an unannounced responsive inspection was completed on the 20 January 2014. Our inspection found that the information received was inaccurate as there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. During our inspection of this service we considered our findings to answer one of our five 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, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence support our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People at Chylidin were safe.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to ensure they were safe and well cared for. One person told us they were “happy” at the service and staff said they enjoyed their work and had received appropriate supervision and training.

Care plans were personalised, detailed and informative. The care plans included sufficient information and guidance to enable staff to provide safe and effective care.

Risks had been effectively assessed and staff provided with appropriate guidance on the management of identified risks while enabling people to make choices and live full and active lives.

We saw where accidents or incidents had occurred these had been appropriately investigated by the registered manager and the provider. The investigation process was designed to ensure risks were reduced and the service learned from each incident.

We spoke with two people who used the service. The conversations were general due to their complex communication needs. Therefore we observed how people interacted with staff and saw they appeared to be satisfied with the care they received and approached staff freely without hesitation.

We observed staff interact with people who used the service in a kind and calm manner. We saw staff showed, through their actions, conversations and during discussions with us empathy and understanding towards the people they cared for. We saw that people's privacy and dignity was respected by the way that staff assisted people with their personal care.

We spoke to three relatives all were positive about the care their family member received at Chyldin. Comments we received included: “X is clean, comfortable, looked after, well fed, seems quite happy, we are grateful for the care X receives” another said “it’s been a great partnership”.

We examined people’s care records and found the records were up to date and reviewed as the person's needs/wishes changed.

We found that people who used the service were involved in making day to day decisions and participated in tasks at home, such as cleaning and doing their laundry. During the visit we noted that people attended a variety of activities so that they had opportunities to pursue their interests.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Staff said they had received sufficient training to enable them to carry out their roles competently and felt there was sufficient staff on duty.

People who used the service, their representatives, and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

We spoke to one person but did not speak directly to the two other people who lived in the home as they had complex communication needs. Instead we saw how the person interacted with staff.

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service in a kind and calm manner. We saw that staff showed, through their actions, conversations and during discussions with us empathy and understanding towards the people they cared for.

We saw that people's privacy and dignity was respected by the way that staff assisted people with their personal care and knocked and waited for permission (before entering bedrooms and bathrooms.

We examined people’s care file and found the records were up to date and reviewed as the person's needs/wishes changed.

We found that people who used the service were involved in making day to day decisions and participated in tasks at home, such as cleaning and doing their laundry. The records showed that they went out frequently and saw healthcare professionals when they needed them.

Staff said they had received sufficient training to enable them to carry out their roles competently and felt there was sufficient staff on duty.

Systems for safeguarding people from financial abuse need to be more robust. Legal safeguards, which protect people unable to make decisions about their own welfare, were understood by staff and used to protect people’s rights

People told us they were happy with the support and accommodation they are provided with at Chylidn. People said they find the staff at the home supportive and friendly. People said they enjoyed the food and there is enough to eat and drink. People said they had the option to participate in a range of activities.