Colne House is a small care home providing accommodation and support for up to eight people with learning disabilities. It is part of the Bridgewood Trust; a charity organisation which provides residential, domiciliary and day services to people with learning disabilities. There are two bedrooms on the ground floor and there is a stairlift to access the first floor where the further bedrooms are situated. There is a step lift at the rear of the property to access the property with ramped access to the front door. At the time of our inspection, there were five people living at the home.

At the last inspection, the service was good. At this inspection we found the service remained good and the service met all relevant fundamental standards.

Staff understood how to keep people safe and were aware of the process to follow if they had any concerns. Risks had been assessed and recorded to ensure people were protected from harm without overly restricting people’s freedom.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff received on-going support from the management team through a programme of regular supervision and appraisals and they had been trained to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to care for people.

Food and drink was tailored to people's individual needs using locally sourced fresh produce and we observed staff supporting people appropriately to maintain their nutritional and hydration needs.

Positive relationships between staff and people who lives at Colne House were evident. People's independence was promoted well by staff who understood how to maximise their independence.

There was clear evidence of person-centred care. People were involved in activities based upon their established routines and preferences. Care records contained information on how to support people but some records contained some out of date information.

The registered manager was visible in the service and communication was open, honest and transparent. Staff had clear direction and were sure about their roles and responsibilities. Systems and processes for ensuring the quality of the service were securely and effectively in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We carried out this inspection on 2 October 2014. This was an unannounced inspection.

Colne House is a small care home providing accommodation and support for up to eight people with learning disabilities. It is part of the Bridgewood Trust; a charity organisation which provides residential, domiciliary and day services to people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection, there were six people using the service.

It is a condition of registration that the provider has a registered manager at the service. 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. During our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.

We found the service to be safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. We saw that people were being cared for appropriately in line with the legal requirement s of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards

We found people’s care records were regularly reviewed and updated, with the involvement of people and their relatives, to reflect people’s changing needs. We also found care records were person-centred and held current details of people’s preferences. Care records also contained information regarding the multi-agency work undertaken by the service.

We found there were usually enough staff at the service who were adequately trained and received refresher training, as required.

We checked the medication trolley and Medication Administration Records (MAR) and found these were managed well. However, we found a discrepancy with the stock check for controlled drugs stored and administered at the home. We spoke with the manager about this, who was able to explain where the discrepancy was and why it was there.

We saw in staff personnel records that all staff received an induction on commencement of employment at the service, along with any training requirements. We also found refresher training was carried out regularly and as required.

We found that people who used the service had been asked for their consent to care and treatment. We saw evidence that, where people had limited capacity to understand decisions they were to make, alternative methods of communication were used to ensure the person knew what they were being asked for consent for. We also observed staff knocked on people’s bedroom doors before entering, ensuring their privacy and dignity was respected.

We saw there was fresh fruit available for people. We also observed people were able to enter and leave the kitchen area as they wished, with access to food and drink at all times.

In care records we looked at, we found the service had involved, or sought to involve relevant healthcare professionals in the planning of care and treatment for people. We also saw evidence of regular attendance at the service by other professionals, including social workers and speech and language therapists.

We saw an activity board at the home which detailed activities that took place at the home on a rolling four-week basis. We also saw evidence of people at the home partaking in these activities through photographs on the activity board, in people’s rooms and in communal areas. We also found rooms to be personalised, with posters on walls and items of interest to the person present. We found a ‘Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults’ poster on the activity board for people to read and the complaints procedure was on a table outside the main office.

We found regular audits were carried out at the home and any issues identified were addressed and signed off when completed. We spoke with people who used the service, staff and management, who all gave positive feedback.

On the day of our visit four people living at Colne House were out of the home attending a Day Centre.

We spoke with the acting manager, two support workers, an agency support worker and four relatives of people who lived at the home.

Relatives we spoke with were positive about the home, comments included:

“The staff are always helpful. I have no qualms at all, the staff are very welcoming”.

“I have no concerns at all, the staff phone me all the time”.

“Staff ring me if there is a problem, I talk to (my relative) on the phone”.

During our visit we observed staff treated people with dignity and respect. People at the home were involved in making decisions about the support they received. We looked at two peoples’ support plans. We saw people’s individual needs had been assessed and plans for their care and support had been developed from this information.

We checked medication records for three individual medications and found them to be correct.

There appeared to be sufficient numbers of staff and they acted appropriately when undertaking their roles and responsibilities.

Documentation also showed an effective system for auditing the quality of service.

Due to the complex needs of the people living at Colne House, it was difficult to ascertain their views. However we did speak to three people who live at the home and they told us they were happy.

Staff told us that people were well looked after