A comprehensive inspection of Cross Heath Drive, took place on 22 October 2018. This was announced as we needed to make sure the manager was available and people were home.

Cross Heath Drive is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. We spoke with the manager regarding the name of the service and they told us the service was actually called Cross Heath Grove.

At the time of registration, the care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The service was working in line with these principles, which included choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Cross Heath Drive is a short break residential care service which aims to provide a holiday style atmosphere for up to five people who have a learning disability. Accommodation is in a purpose-built house with five bedrooms, each with en-suite facilities. Communal lounges, kitchen and dining areas are provided.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, but they were moving to a new post within the company. A new manager was in the process of registering with Care Quality Commission (CQC). It was the new manager who I spoke with during this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

Areas of people’s medicines were not well managed. Although, the evidence suggested this did not negatively impact on people’s well-being and the manager made immediate changes to rectify this.

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 did not support this practice, as decision specific mental capacity assessments were not in place.

Quality management systems were in place but these were not always effective. The audits did not identify the concerns found during this inspection, which included, making sure areas of people’s support plans were up to date and accurate recording of people’s medications administration.

Accidents and incidents were analysed in a way which enabled trends to be identified. People and staff had opportunity to comment on the quality of service and influence service delivery. Complaints were welcomed and there was a system in place for handling complaints.

People received appropriate support for their nutrition and hydration needs. People had access to local healthcare professional, when needed, to make sure their health needs were met. Although, records regarding any unplanned admissions to hospital had not been updated for some time. Advocacy services were available if people, so wished.

Relatives told us their family member was safe when during their stay. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew what to do to keep people safe.

The building was well maintained and regular safety checks took place. Plans were in place to safely evacuate people in the case of emergencies, although, these had not been reviewed for some time. We found the home was clean, tidy and well maintained. People had brought items from home to personalise their bedroom. Communal areas were comfortably furnished. The home was small with ramp access and wide door areas. People were familiar with the layout of the building.

We found peo

Our inspection took place on 18 April 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours notice because the service is only staffed when needed. At our last inspection in November 2013 we found the provider was meeting all the standards we looked at.

Cross Heath Drive is a short break residential care service which aims to provide a holiday style atmosphere for up to five people who have a learning disability. Accommodation is in a purpose built house with five bedrooms, each with en-suite facilities. Communal lounges, kitchen and dining areas are provided. At the time of the inspection there were four people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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 who used the service and their relatives told us they were safe at Cross Heath Drive. The provider had taken appropriate action to minimise risks to people including training staff in safeguarding, adopting safe recruitment practices, keeping the premises clean and well maintained and assessing risks associated with people’s care and support needs in a robust way. We found all assessments of risk were kept up to date.

The provider had effective systems and procedures in place to manage people’s medicines safely. Any errors were identified quickly and appropriate action was taken to prevent their re-occurrence.

New staff received a thorough induction to prepare them for their roles. We found an effective programme of staff training in place and people told us they were supported by staff with appropriate skills.

We found the provider had ensured staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and we saw people were actively and appropriately supported to make choices.

People were supported to make choices about what they had to eat and we saw these were respected. People’s likes, dislikes and preferences were reflected in their care plans.

We received good feedback about the caring and dedicated nature of the staff. People and their relatives praised them highly. We found staff knew people who used the service well, and we observed a very relaxed and engaging atmosphere in the home.

Care plans were person centred and kept up to date. People’s relatives were contacted prior to a respite stay to ensure this information was reviewed and reflected people’s current preferences, needs and lifestyles. Annual reviews of care plans reflected the involvement of people, their relatives and other health and social care professionals involved in their support.

The provider was proactive in seeking people’s feedback about the service and thorough in ensuring concerns and complaints were logged and responded to.

Staff told us they had good support from the registered manager, service manager and senior staff. Staff told us there was a positive culture in the service which meant they felt consulted, informed and listened to.

Relatives we spoke to told us the service was well-led. They told us staff and management were approachable and easy to talk to.

The provider had a number of effective systems in place to drive quality in the service, and we saw these included listening to staff and people who used the service.