This was an announced inspection and we gave the provider 48 hours' notice of the visit on 15 August 2018 and arranged to return on 20 August 2018 to complete the inspection. We gave the provider notice because the location provides a supported living service and we wanted the people using the service (tenants) to be aware of the inspection. We also needed to be sure that someone would be available to assist with the inspection.

This was Earlmont House first inspection under a new care provider, Care Management Group Limited (CMG) who took over supporting people in 2017. CMG have approximately 140 locations across the country, predominantly for people with physical and learning disabilities.

Earlmont House can provide care and support for up to 10 people living with mental health needs in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. The service was staffed twenty four hours a day, with a staff member providing waking night support. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of our inspection there were seven people using the service.

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.

Although there were various audits and checks in place these had not effectively identified issues with medicine management and the recording of potential risks for people taking medicines.

This was a breach of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This related to good governance (Regulation 17). You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The majority of risks to people’s wellbeing had been assessed and planned for. Where there had been shortfalls in recording some of the risks this was addressed shortly after the inspection.

There had been issues, that fell outside of the remit of the care provider, regarding tenancy agreements and work that needed to be carried out on the building and equipment within the service. This inspection assisted with helping this progress further so that people had suitable tenancy agreements that they felt comfortable to sign and that fire safety was prioritised. Following this inspection, the service received a visit from the fire service who carried out their own assessment of the building and fire safety. This would then inform the care and housing provider what action would need to be taken to meet the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

We received very positive feedback from the people using the service and from a person who had recently moved out of the service. They all spoke highly of the support they had received from the staff team and many noted how the registered manager had made a difference to their lives.

There were procedures designed to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and people confirmed they felt safe using the service. 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.

Staff confirmed the staff team worked well together and that the support and training they received helped them in their roles. The provider ensured that only suitable staff were employed. There were sufficient numbers of staff working at any one time.

People using the service were asked for their feedback on the service and their views were listened to and valued. Some people had become more independent and were looki