We inspected this service on 14 November 2016. This was an announced inspection and we telephoned the provider two days before our inspection to ensure we had an opportunity to speak with people who used the service. This was the first inspection of this service.

The service was registered to provide personal care for people. At the time of our inspection, four people with a learning disability were supported by the provider in their own shared home.

The service had 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.

People felt safe when being supported by staff who knew how to protect them if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or harm. The staff knew how and when to report their concerns if they suspected someone was at risk of abuse so that they could be protected.

The staff had a good understanding of the specific risks to each person and what they should do to minimise these without restricting people’s rights to undertake activities or tasks. People were involved in a range of interests and were able to choose how to spend their time and to develop and maintain relationships with their families and friends.

There were enough staff to support people. People only received support in their home during the day and there were arrangements in place for people to have additional support when needed during the night. People’s consent to care was sought and they had capacity to make important decisions. People could choose to be supported by family or an advocate when making decisions. The support plans reflected their specific needs and preferences for how they wished to be supported and were reviewed with them regularly.

Staff supported people to keep healthy and well and ensured they were able to access healthcare services when this was needed. People received support to manage and control their medicines and were prompted to take these to keep well, where this was required.

People were treated with kindness and respect and staff promoted people’s independence. People were helped to prepare and cook their own meals and they were responsible for shopping and planning their meals. People could choose their own food and drink and were supported to eat healthily.

People felt comfortable raising any issues or concerns directly with staff and there were arrangements in place to deal with people's complaints. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People and staff were encouraged to raise any views about the service to consider how improvements could be made. The manager promoted an open culture which put people at the heart of the service.

People using the service told us they liked where they were living and the support they received. They told us they liked the staff. Our observation showed us that people enjoyed warm relationships with staff and they confirmed they were treated with respect and their privacy was maintained. One person said “I like it here” and another said “I’m more independent now”. They told us they felt safe using the service and staff we spoke with knew what to do if they had any suspicions of abuse.

We found the service did not have proper recruitment procedures and that information legally required before people commenced work was not available.

We found staff received essential training and their induction was useful but that some health and safety training did not occur and supervision of staff was informal.

We saw that the service did not have well established quality assurance procedures and that feedback from people was not sought properly in order to drive improvements.

We did not discuss the improvements made with people using the service.

We found that the service had undertaken some of the improvements it told us about in its action plan following our inspection visit in July 2013.

We found the service had improved its recruitment procedures and that the legally required information was in place.

We found staff had not received moving and handling training since our previous visit in July 2013 but there was a planned date for this training in January 2014. We saw that fire safety training had been undertaken by the manager and she told us she was trying to source more practical training. We also found that staff supervision had improved and was recorded.

Staff had not commenced qualification training at level 3 as specified in the service’s action plan but the manager told us this had been applied for and the service was waiting for dates in 2014.

We saw that the service had started to establish quality assurance procedures, including compiling a survey for relatives and service users, although these were not fully operational and some of the information available was minimal.