The inspection took place on 11 and 12 January 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. On the second day of the inspection the management team, staff and people knew to expect us.

Coppice Close is located in Burgess Hill. The home provides support to people living with a learning or physical disability as well as people living with a condition on the autistic spectrum or an acquired brain injury. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

The home accommodated a maximum of sixteen people within four purpose-built bungalows. Each bungalow consisted of people’s own rooms with en-suite facilities, a communal kitchen and lounge area, and there was a large garden that was shared between all four of the bungalows. On the day of our inspection there were seven people living at the home.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a ‘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 home is run. The management team consisted of the provider, a registered manager, a quality assurance manager and senior support workers.

At the previous inspection on 1 December 2015 the home received a rating of ‘Good’ At this inspection, on 11 and 12 January 2018, we found that the home remained ‘Good’.

People, relatives and healthcare professionals told us that people were safe. Comments from relatives included, “I would know if my relative was not happy or felt unsafe” and “My relative has not displayed any negative behaviour which tells me they must be safe and comfortable”. The provider had ensured that staff were suitably trained to recognise when people were at risk of abuse and staff demonstrated a good knowledge with regards to the signs and symptoms to look for if they felt that people were at risk of harm. Staff had access to specific training to meet people’s needs, such as positive behaviour support training and supporting people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum conditions. Relatives told us that they felt that staff had the necessary skills to support their relatives.

People, relatives and healthcare professionals told us that staff were kind, caring and compassionate and our observations confirmed this. One person told us, “10 out of 10”. Comments from relatives included, “The staff team are very good, my relative gets on with most”, “Very good, my relative is very happy” and “My relative enjoys being there”. Another relative described the staff as having “Endless patience”. A healthcare professional told us, “Oh yes, they do their best”.

There was a warm, homely, and friendly atmosphere. This was echoed in comments made by relatives who told us that the home was a “Family environment” and had “A family-home atmosphere”. People told us that they were happy, that they liked the staff and thought that they were fun. People smiled and laughed when telling us about the staff and it was clear that positive and warm relationships had developed and grown. People were supported when they became anxious or distressed and staff took time to support people in the community for drives or to local cafes to reduce their anxiety and escalating behaviours. People were treated with respect and were afforded privacy, their dignity promoted and maintained.

Independence was encouraged and people were supported to undertake daily living skills to encourage their independence. A relative told us, “The food is very good and they involve my relative in shopping and cooking”.

People’s needs were assessed and support was adapted to meet people’s asses

The inspection took place on 1 December 2015.

Coppice Close is located in Burgess Hill. It is registered to accommodate a maximum of sixteen people. The home provides support to people living with a learning or physical disability and who may need assistance with their personal care and support needs. The home itself is spread out across four purpose built bungalows, each bungalow consists of people’s own rooms with ensuite facilities, a communal kitchen and lounge area, there is a large garden that is shared between all four of the bungalows. On the day of our inspection there were nine people living at the home.

The home 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’s independence was promoted, their rights were respected and their privacy and dignity maintained. People were able to make their opinions and feelings known and records showed that they had been listened to and changes made as a result. Consent was obtained before people were supported and they were encouraged to make their own decisions. For people that lacked capacity relevant assessments had been undertaken and procedures followed to ensure that restrictions on their freedom complied with legal requirements.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s communication needs and adapted their communication, using various forms to ensure people understood. People appeared to be happy at the home and relatives felt that people were safe. People were able to make choices, maintain their independence and develop skills for everyday life. One member of staff told us “We support people to make choices about everything they do, but we also balance this with protecting them to make sure they are safe.”

Medicines were managed appropriately and following a serious incident measures had been taken to ensure that risks in relation to accessing medication were minimised.

The provider had undertaken a large recruitment drive and also used agency staff, however the provider had taken appropriate measures to ensure that the staff team were consistent and knew people’s needs. New staff had undertaken their induction training and had shadowed more experienced staff to ensure that they were competent before working alone. Observations of interactions confirmed that staff knew people well and one member of staff told us “We know if they want to get up or have something to eat and understand their routines.”

Suitable staff were recruited and their employment history and suitability and fitness to work in the sector were checked prior to them starting work. Staff received basic mandatory training as well as additional training that was specific to the needs of people living in the home. There were regular supervisions and staff told us that they felt adequately supported. Staffing levels within the home had been reviewed following a serious incident and were found to be sufficient to meet people’s needs.

People were able to choose what they had to eat and drink and were happy with the food offered, there were opportunities for people to purchase the chosen items of food as well as to prepare them to encourage independence and development of life skills.

Staff were caring and kind, people appeared to be happy when staff were supporting them and relatives confirmed that people liked living at the home. One relative told us “My relative visits me at weekends but at times he can’t wait to get back to the home, he loves the interaction and buzz with the staff.”

People were treated with respect, their differences were recognised and the support offered was tailored to each person’s individual needs. The home was an accessible environment, adaptations to the environment had been made to ensure that it was accessible to all and the staff’s approach to equality was demonstrated through their attitude towards ensuring people had equal access to activities. For example, one person who used a wheelchair expressed a wish to go ice-skating, staff assessed the situation and ensured that the necessary equipment and staffing levels were correct to enable the person to fulfil their wish and go ice-skating.

People and their relatives were involved in the development of care plans, they were asked for the opinions, goals and aspirations. Care plans were regularly reviewed and reflected changes in people’s wishes, as well as their needs, to ensure that staff were kept informed of any changes in people’s support requirements. Activities were offered in accordance with people’s wishes, weekly meetings took place to enable people to choose what they wanted to do the following week. However, people were able to change their mind and choose how they spent their time.

Relatives were happy with the leadership and management of the home. They felt that the registered manager was approachable and helped with any areas of concern or issues that they raised. There were mechanisms in place to gain feedback and to ensure that the systems and processes used within the home were effective and meeting people’s needs and changes had been made to these if needed.

There were four purpose-built bungalows offering accommodation for 16 people. When we visited there were four people living there in two of the bungalows and the other two were unoccupied. The bungalows were open plan and fully wheelchair-accessible. Whilst each bungalow was self-contained internally, they were connected to each other by a communal garden. There was a light, airy feel to the bungalows and the furnishings were fresh, clean and bright.

We met and spoke with the manager and four other members of staff who were on duty. We also met three members of staff who were attending their induction training and we met the other staff as we were able to attend a staff meeting. The staff we met, and the manager, were enthusiastic about their work and fully committed to the welfare of the people living in the home. Some of the staff were newly appointed and were pleased with how things were going. One said 'it is well organised and the manager is efficient but also very approachable and friendly'. Another said, 'I am happy with my decision to come here, I feel I have landed on my feet.'