The Fremantle Trust – 3 The Glade is a service registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to eight people who have a learning disability. On the day of the inspection eight people were using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place which enabled them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Staff received a comprehensive induction and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care and support based on current best practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including opticians, doctors and hospital appointments to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities of their choice.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

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 support this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We visited the service and spoke with the registered manager, three staff and four of the eight people living at the service. Most people had limited verbal communication but we were able to interact with them and to observe their interactions with staff.

The people living at the service were involved in the day to day activities in the home. They also took part in various activities outside of the service both on a one to one basis called "My Time" and at the day service known as "The Hub."

We found people had detailed care plans that identified and managed their needs and any risk factors; these were updated and reviewed by support staff and health and social care professionals. People's special dietary needs were addressed and where necessary professional advice had been sought to assist in meeting people's needs.

We spoke with three staff who were able to tell us about the indicators of potential abuse and told us about the safeguarding of vulnerable adults training they had recently received. There was robust recruitment involving people who lived at the home. Records showed staff received an induction and staff we spoke with confirmed this.

The service was well led by the registered manager. There was a robust quality assurance system in place which ensured that the provider assessed their compliance with the essential standards of quality. Where necessary steps were taken to improve and enhance the experiences for people living at the service.

During our visit on 4 January 2013, we observed the interaction between people living at the service and the staff team. Most individuals had complex needs and impaired communications skills and were not able to tell us their experiences. There were seven people living at the home, with three people in the service when we visited. We spoke with one person living in the service who was able to share their experiences with us.

We saw that staff were aware of people’s needs and offered choice that enabled the individual to be involved even if their ability to consent was limited.

Even though people did not have the ability to sign to agree their care plans the plans were person centred. The plans used phrases such as “I like ...” or “I need …” People’s representatives were consulted about how people's needs were met.

The medication system was robust and the provider had put in place a policy and procedure for staff to follow when dealing with medication. All staff who administered medication had been trained to do so.

We saw that each member of staff had completed an application form, two references had been taken up and a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) clearance had been obtained before commencing employment. All staff received training such as, Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults (SOVA), food safety, moving and handling and fire safety.

The provider has developed a detailed complaints policy. The information was provided publicly in an easy read format.

The people living in the home were not all able to communicate verbally and so, during our visit on 22 February 2012, we spent some time observing and listening to the care provided to them. Staff spoke with people in a respectful and kind manner and there was relaxed and positive communication between people and the members of staff. There was lots of laughter and we could see that people got a lot of pleasure out of the dog that lived in the home.

Staff explained to people what they were going to do prior to assisting them. People were supported with food and drink in an appropriate way and we saw that one person was being assisted to make the evening meal for everyone.

This inspection took place 23 & 29 July 2015 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

The Fremantle Trust - 3 The Glade is a service registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to eight people who have a learning disability. On the day of our inspection seven people were using the service.

There was a registered manger in post. 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. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs.

Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service.

Medicines were managed safely and the processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

Staff received a comprehensive induction process and ongoing training. They were very well supported by the registered manager and had regular one to one time for supervisions.

Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

Staff always gained consent before supporting people.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were very knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required.

People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including dentist, opticians and doctors.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well.

People and relatives where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were supported to follow their interests.

A complaints procedure was in place and accessible to all. People knew how to complain.

Effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.