This inspection took place on 31 July 2018 and was announced because the location is a care home for adults with complex needs who have structured routines and often go out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Creative Support - Ulverston Autism Service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home provides accommodation and personal care for six adults who have autism and complex needs. Each person has an individual living space within the home which is recognised as their own flat. The service also has communal facilities that people share including a lounge area, a dining room, kitchen and laundry room. Each flat has access to its own secure garden area and there is also a communal garden.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager 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.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs. Staff training was ongoing and staff had received sufficient training to safely support and care for people. Staff were supported by the registered manager and deputy manager through regular staff meetings, supervision and appraisals.

We saw that the service worked with a variety of external agencies and health professionals to provide appropriate care and support to meet people’s physical and emotional health needs.

Where safeguarding concerns or incidents had occurred these had been reported by the registered manager to the appropriate authorities and we could see records of the actions that had been taken by the service to protect people.

When employing fit and proper persons the recruitment process had included all of the required checks of suitability.

People’s rights were protected. The registered manager was knowledgeable about their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were only deprived of their liberty if this had been authorised by the appropriate body or where applications had been made to do so.

Hazards to people’s safety had been identified and managed. People were supported to access activities that were made available to them and pastimes of their choice.

People were treated with respect and their dignity and privacy were actively promoted by the staff supporting them.

Auditing and quality monitoring systems were in place that allowed the service to demonstrate effectively the safety and quality of the provision.

The focus of the service was on promoting people’s rights. 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.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We carried out this announced inspection on 16 October 2015. We last inspected this service in August 2013. At that inspection we found that the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.

Creative Support - Ulverston Autism Service provides accommodation and personal care for six adults who have autism and complex needs. Each person has their own self-contained flat within the home. The service also has communal facilities which people can share including sitting areas, a dining room, kitchens and laundry room. Each flat has access to its own secure garden area and there is also a safe communal garden.

There was a registered manager employed in the home. 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 who lived at this home had complex needs and could not easily share their views with us. We saw that people looked comfortable and relaxed in the home and with the staff who supported them.

All the staff had completed training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support individuals and to protect their safety and rights.

The staff treated people in a kind and respectful way. They knew how people communicated their wishes and gave people choices in a way they could understand. All the staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse.

People were provided with meals and activities that they enjoyed and that took account of their individual needs and preferences. They received support to maintain their health from a range of appropriate local and specialist health services.

The focus of the service was to promote people’s independence and to protect their rights. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s rights were protected because there were no restrictions on their liberty unless an appropriate authorisation was in place.

The registered provider had good systems in place to oversee the quality of the service. The staff were well supported. They knew how they could raise any concerns and were confident action would be taken in response to any issues they raised.

People who used this service were not able to easily express their views about the support they received. We met with people in their own flats and observed people as they were supported by the staff in the home. We saw staff were knowledgeable about the support individuals needed. People were treated with respect and chose how they wanted to spend their time. We saw individuals were comfortable and confident around the staff who were supporting them. The staff on duty were able to communicate with and understand the people they were supporting. Care was focussed on the individual and people were provided with a range of activities suitable to meet their needs and which took account of their abilities and interests.

The records we looked at documented consultations of best interest decisions made by the appropriate people involved in the care and support of the people using the service. This was confirmed when we spoke with relatives. They told us they felt involved in the planning and decision making about their relatives care. They told us, "We are kept informed and our opinions are taken into account".

Staff we spoke with told us they worked closely with families so they felt involved and could make contributions of their own. A relative we spoke with told us, "They are very good at letting us know of any changes. We tend to speak with staff nearly every day".

Staff we spoke with told us about their induction programme. One member of staff said, ‘’The training was very good and gave me the tools to work with people with Autism''.

We saw that audits and quality monitoring checks had been completed on a regular basis. We saw from records of incidents and audits of medications that processes and systems had been amended to prevent reoccurrence of problems identified.

Relatives we spoke with told us they had no complaints about the service but would be happy to raise their concerns directly with any member of staff. The provider might wish to note we were also told that people were not aware of the actual complaints procedure.