This inspection took place on 31 August 2017 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 3 December 2014. At that inspection we found one breach of the regulations relating to the requirement to notify the Care Quality Commission of important events.

Fairford Court is registered to provide accommodation and care for eight people with autism and Asperger’s syndrome in a residential care unit as well as personal care and support to eight people in a supported living service on the same site. The supported living service offers an outreach service to people in the community. On the day of the inspection there were six people being supported within the residential care unit, eight people living in the supported living service and one person receiving outreach support.

As the management of the residential care service had separated from the supported living service on the day of the inspection there were now two registered managers, one for each service. The inspection report covers both services. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 told us they liked living at the service and found staff friendly and helpful. Relatives and health professionals spoke well of the service.

Staff were able to tell us about safeguarding and how they would keep people safe if they had any safeguarding concerns. Staff also understood how to whistle blow.

Staff told us they were supported in their role and received an induction, training and supervision.

The registered manager could show us they were in the process of recruiting to vacant posts that had been filled by agency staff. People told us they preferred having staff who knew them well to support them.

Medicines were safely managed and staff were safely recruited.

People were supported to carry out a range of activities and were involved in volunteering and paid work.

The service was clean and people were supported to be as independent as possible. People were involved in drawing up their care plans and had regular meetings with their keyworker to set out their goals and ambitions.

People had good access to healthcare and there was psychological support commissioned by the provider to assist people in understanding their individual situation, and to support staff in their role.

The provider and registered manager undertook audits in key areas to ensure the service provided was of a good quality.

Utilities such as gas, electricity and health and safety checks had been undertaken in the last 12 months.

This inspection took place on 3 December 2014 and was unannounced.

Fairford Court provides accommodation and care for eight people with autism and Asperger’s Syndrome as well as personal care to eight people in an outreach service. There were fourteen people using the service at the time of our inspection. Seven people were receiving residential care and seven people were receiving an outreach service.

A registered manager was in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

We last inspected this service in June 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

During the current inspection visit people told us that they were happy with support provided to them. They said that they and their family members where relevant, had been included in planning and agreeing to the care provided. We saw that people had individual plans detailing the support they needed.

The service had an appropriate recruitment system for new staff to assess their suitability, and we found that staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. Staff supported people to develop their independence and work towards a wide range of goals of their choosing, such as taking vocational and academic courses, finding employment and developing social groups and fitness routines. People were treated with respect and compassion. They were supported to attend routine health checks, and there was evidence of attention to people’s physical and mental health care needs.

Staff in the service knew how to recognise and report abuse, and what action to take if they were concerned about somebody’s safety or welfare. Management were in the process of improving the frequency of supervision sessions provided to staff members. Staff spoke highly of the training provided to ensure that they worked in line with best practice.

There were systems in place to monitor and address deficiencies to the environment. Some people felt that maintenance issues took a long time to address, but we found that the environment was safe. There were rigorous systems in place for managing people’s medicines safely.

Quality assurance systems at the service were suitable to assess and monitor the service people received. No complaints had been received within the last year, but people had the opportunity to comment on the service at regular meetings. Health and social care professionals working with people living at the service gave very positive feedback about the support provided by the service.

We found one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 relating to notifications to the Care Quality Commission about incidents involving the police. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We spoke with four of the people using the service. They told us they liked it. One person said, “it’s very welcoming, a nice environment to be in and all round good.” A second person said, “I’m happy here and it’s a good service.” We spoke with three relatives on the telephone after our visit. They all gave positive comments about the service. For example, one said, “on the whole we have had a good experience,” and a second said, “they are a good lot there.”

People’s care needs were identified and clearly set out in care plans for staff to follow. We saw staff being proactive in assisting and encouraging people using the service to take up appointments and go out for activities. Staff had made effective links with other providers so that people using the service could access additional support or healthcare. Medication was stored safely and there were checks to make sure medicines were administered properly.

Staff recruitment included interviews and relevant checks being made before work was offered. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. There were a variety of ways of checking the quality of the service which included obtaining and acting on people’s wishes and views. Records were being kept up to date and included the signature of two staff for additional protection in relation to money and medication records.

We spoke with three people who used the service. They told us they were happy with the service and were supported by staff to become involved in community activities. Several people were supported by staff to attend college and other courses or work opportunities. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to deliver the support to people that they needed and protect them from the risk of abuse. The provider regularly monitored the service to make sure that risks to people were minimised and an appropriate standard of care and treatment was provided.

The service is currently dormant. At the time of our visit, there was nobody living at the home and nobody receiving a service.