Elliot Avenue is a care home and provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a learning disability, mental health support needs and/or autism. It is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the service. The service is located in a residential suburb of the city of Peterborough.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the 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.

This inspection was carried out on 3 March 2017 and was an announced inspection. At the last inspection on 26 May 2015, the service was rated as ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good.’

People were safe living at the service and staff were knowledgeable of how to report incidents of harm and poor care. Information was provided to people in different formats to enable them to report any concerns that they may have had. Accidents and incidents were identified and recorded. and actions were taken to, as far as possible, reduce the risk of recurrence.

People had health, support, and care plans in place which took account of their individual needs. These plans recorded people’s choices, their likes and dislikes, any assistance they required and their future goals to be achieved. Risks to people who lived at the service were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to minimise these risks and enable people to live as safe and independent a life as possible.

People were looked after by enough, suitably qualified staff to support them safely with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were deemed to be suitable to look after people at the service. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed by staff whose competency had been assessed.

Staff assisted people in a way that supported their safety and they were treated with respect. Staff assisted people in a kind manner and with compassion. Staff promoted and encouraged people to make their own choices. People’s dignity was respected at all times and staff assisted people in the way they wished to be supported.

The service was flexible and responsive to people’s individual complexities and needs. People maintained contact with their relatives, the local community and where appropriate attend educational classes which they benefitted from. This engagement with the local community was seen as a natural part of people’s lives. People were supported and encouraged by staff to take part in a range of hobbies and personal interests. Staff endeavoured to develop people’s abilities and progress people’s independent living skills.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also assisted to access a range of health care services when needed and their individual health needs were met.

Staff enjoyed their work and were supported and managed to look after people. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. They were assisted by the registered manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge by way of supervision, observations, and appraisals. Staff were trained to provide safe and effective care which met people’s individual needs and knew people’s care requirements well.

There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and acted upon promptly. Staff worked alongside people offering additional suggestions and ideas that the person may not have considered themselves. As such, people felt empowered and listened to.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the Deprivation of Liber

Elliot Avenue is a registered care home and provides accommodation and non-nursing care for up to six people with a learning disability and autism. At the time of our inspection there were four people living at the home. The home is located in a residential suburb of the city of Peterborough. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the home.

The named registered manager was not in post and not managing the home when we visited. A new manager, who had started their new role in March 2015, was applying to become the 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. A registered manager was not in post and action was taken to try and fill this vacancy.

At our unannounced inspection on 25 November 2013 the provider was meeting the regulations that we had assessed against.

People were safe living at the home and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were judged to be suitable to look after people at the home. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also supported to access a range of health care services and their individual health needs were met.

People’s rights in making decisions and suggestions in relation to their support and care were valued and acted on.

People were supported by staff who were trained and supported to do their job, which they enjoyed.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. DoLS applications had been made to the appropriate authorities to ensure that people’s rights were protected.

People were treated by kind, respectful and attentive staff. People and their relatives were involved in the review of their individual care plans.

Support and care was provided based on people’s individual needs and they were supported to maintain contact with their relatives and the local community. People took part in a range of hobbies and interests. There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to appropriately acted upon.

The manager was supported by an operational manager. Staff enjoyed their work and were supported and managed to look after people in a safe way. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action had been taken where improvements were identified.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

The person we spoke with during our inspection was positive about the care and support they received. They told us that they were, "Happy here. Staff are nice.” A relative of a person using the service told us that they, “Think (Elliot Avenue) is great.”

We looked at two people’s care records and found that they contained detailed information to enable staff to deliver safe care and support. We saw that care was planned in a way that supported people to live as independent a life as possible.

People were protected from the risk of dehydration and poor nutrition because nutritional needs were assessed ensuring that any such risks were identified and eliminated. We also saw evidence of where a person's religious and cultural food and drink requirements were put in place by the provider.

When reviewing medication administration records (MAR) charts, we saw documented evidence of accurate medication administration by staff.

There were effective staffing levels in place to ensure the safety and well-being of people who lived at the home.

There was an effective system in place for people using the service, their relatives and visitors to the home to raise a concern or complaint if they wished to do so.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

Since our previous inspection of 7 January 2013 we saw that the provider had made improvements to people's plans of care and also people's risk assessments. Evidence we saw demonstrated to us that people were supported as much or as little as the person wanted but only when this was safe to do so. People's assessed risks, such as transport or access to the community, demonstrated to us that risks to people were effectively managed.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

People's ability to provide consent was assisted through the use of health care professionals, families, representatives and care staff to ensure, through best interest meetings, that people only received care and treatment that they had consented to.

We reviewed three people's care plans who currently live at Elliot Avenue and found that these contained plenty of detailed information that would allow any carer to care for that person. However, only one of the care plans had been reviewed within the last 12 months.

All of the staff we spoke with were able to accurately describe to us the different types of abuse and the reporting process associated with the safeguarding of vulnerable adults (SOVA).

We reviewed staff recruitment records and found that all staff had an enhanced criminal records bureau check completed before they commenced work at the home. We also saw that previous employment checks had been completed and any gaps in employment history had been explained.

The provider used various means to establish people's views on the quality of the service. They showed us that they aimed to make changes and improvements to the quality of the home people lived in and the care that they received.

We obtained evidence of peoples’ experiences of the service throughout our visit when people shared their views with us. We also spoke with two relatives.

Comments made were varied but all those received were generally positive about the quality of service provided. One person who used the service advised us that they were treated well by the staff and were happy living in the home. They told us that they felt safe. Another person responded positively to our questions about care provided by the staff.

A visiting family member told us, “I like the feel of the place. It is calm and quiet and my relative can have their own space. They are really enjoying college and have made friends. They are very happy and have made good progress.” One family member mentioned that they would like to know, in more detail, which activities were planned.