Conquest Lodge is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 19 with a learning disability, mental health support needs and or a physical disability. It is not registered to provide nursing care. There were 16 people living at the service on the day of our inspection. The service comprises of four bungalows.The service is also registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes, although at the time of this inspection there were no people that required this activity.

This unannounced inspection took place on 12 July 2017. At the last inspection on 19 August 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found overall the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Potential risks to people were assessed and minimised and staff understood their responsibility to protect people from avoidable harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and staff recruitment ensured that only staff suitable to work at this home were employed. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received induction, training and support that ensured they could do their job well. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People's nutritional needs were met and people were supported to have enough to eat and drink. A range of healthcare professionals visited the home to support people to maintain good health.

Staff treated people with kindness. Staff showed they genuinely cared about the people they were looking after. They respected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as they could be. Visitors were welcomed and also had warm, friendly relationships with the staff.

Care plans were person centred and gave staff guidance on the care each person needed. A wide range of activities, outings and entertainment was provided and people were encouraged to follow their own interests. People and their relatives knew who to speak to if they were not happy with the service and were confident their complaints would be addressed.

There was a registered manager in post who was approachable, supportive and provided good leadership. People, staff and visitors to the home were encouraged to put forward their views about the service being provided. The quality of the care was monitored by a range of audits that were carried out regularly.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Conquest Lodge is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 19 people. The home does not provide nursing care. The home mainly provides support for people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder and who may also have mental health needs. Accommodation is provided in four bungalows on one site. There were 19 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

This inspection was undertaken on 19 August 2015 and was unannounced. We last inspected Conquest Lodge in June 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the essential standards that we assessed.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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 had mental capacity assessments completed and information about their best interest decisions was well documented. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards guidance had been followed. This meant that where people were restricted from leaving the home on their own, completed applications had been sent to the appropriate agencies to ensure people were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

People’s health and care needs were assessed and reviewed so that staff knew how to care for and support people in the home. People had access to a wide variety of health professionals who were requested appropriately and who provided information to maintain people’s health and wellbeing.

The risk of harm for people was reduced because staff knew how to recognise and report harm. People were supported to be as safe as possible and risk assessments had been written to give staff the information they needed to reduce risks.

Staff received an induction and were supported through regular supervision, annual appraisals and training to ensure they understood their roles and responsibilities.

People were involved in the planning and choice of the meals, snacks and drinks.

People were able, with support, to contact their friends and families when they wanted. Staff supported and encouraged people with activities and interests that they enjoyed.

People were able to raise any concerns or complaints with the staff and were confident that action would be taken. Independent advocates were available so that people could be provided with independent support.

People in the home were happy with the staff and management. People were involved in meetings, and action was taken where requests or comments had been raised regarding suggested improvements.

An adult social care inspector carried out this this inspection on 13 June 2014. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, two healthcare professionals who had regular contact with the home, the registered manager and five members of care staff. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included five care plans, daily records, safeguarding procedures, training records and quality assurance monitoring records.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time. We have contacted the provider about this and we are in the process of removing the person’s name from the home's registration.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people’s individual needs and activities were carried out and arrangements were in place to minimise any potential dangers as much as possible. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in making sure people were protected from the risk of abuse and were up to date with safeguarding training and accompanying reporting procedures. The premises were well maintained and met the personal preferences and needs of people living in the home.

Is the service effective?

The care staff we met were knowledgeable about people’s individual care and support needs. Observations we made during our inspection confirmed that the care staff provided friendly and attentive support when assisting people during the day. People were assisted to make choices regarding how they wished to spend time during the day either at home, or when accessing facilities in the wider community.

Is the service caring?

Observations made during our inspection showed that people received warm, consistent and respectful support from care staff and they were enabled to make choices and changes when required. One person told us that “I really like living here and the staff help me with cooking and shopping.” Staff told us that they were well supported and supervised by the manager and senior staff so that they could provide safe care and support to people.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people’s personal care and social support needs were assessed and met by staff. This also included people’s individual choices and preferences as to how they liked to be supported. We observed and saw from the records that people could make changes to their support and had been involved in the regular reviews of their support plans as much as possible.

Is the service well led?

The home was effectively managed and staff told us that they felt well supported and were regularly trained to safely provide support to people. Observations made during our inspection showed that staff were enthusiastic, friendly and attentive so that people were supported consistently and safely. Health and safety checks were in place to monitor the services provided. The service gathered opinions from people who used the service, healthcare professionals and staff to identify any improvements that could be made to the service

People that we spoke with during our inspection visit on 24 July 2013 were positive and satisfied with the care and support they received whilst living in the home. They made comments such as; “The staff are very helpful and help me during the day”. People said that they had a keyworker to help them organise their week and any events that were coming up. People felt that they could talk to the manager and staff whenever they wanted to sort out any problems or concerns.

Care and support was being regularly reviewed to ensure that peoples’ needs were being met. There was evidence of people’s involvement in the planning of their care and support.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medication and records of administration were accurately completed.

There was regular staff supervision and ongoing training sessions in place to ensure that staff could safely deliver care and support to people.

The home had an effective system to effectively deal with complaints that people using the service. People regularly had access to staff to resolve any concerns that they had.

During our inspection visit on 27 September 2012 people told us their care and support was, "fantastic". One person said, ‘The staff are really good". They went on to explain how they make the most of the decisions about their support and how they are in control of much of this support. Another person demonstrated their autonomy and how they influenced the way they were supported. We saw that people were making choices and decisions about many aspects of their care arrangements.

We met a number of people who use the service and we spoke with three of the people who told us that they were satisfied with the home. Whilst most of the people were out during the day, one person was away on a holiday and several people had just returned from trips home to see their own family.

A few of the people using the service had limited or no verbal communication. We met with some people when staff were assisting them with their lunch time meal and noted that interactions were upbeat and appropriate. It was clear that staff understood how to meet the needs of people living in the flat.