We inspected this service on 13 December 2018. The inspection was announced and carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience.

The service provides domiciliary care and supported living to people in their own homes. Ten people were tenants at St Vincent’s House and five people had their own homes in the local community.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

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.

At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as Good. At this inspection, we found the overall quality of the care had been maintained and people continued to receive a service that was safe, caring, effective and responsive to their needs. However, the registered manager had not met their legal obligation to send us statutory notifications about specific events as required. The rating for the key area Well Led is now Requires Improvement. The overall rating continues to be Good.

People felt safe with staff in their own homes. Risks had been assessed and staff knew how to keep people safe and minimise risks of harm and injury. Staff had been trained in safeguarding people and knew how to report concerns. People received their care and support at the agreed times. Staff knew what action to take in the event of an emergency. The provider checked staff’s suitability to deliver care and support during the recruitment process.

Staff respected people’s choices about how they wanted to be supported. People were encouraged and supported to maintain good health through healthy eating and attending healthcare appointments. People received their prescribed medicines from trained staff. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked within the principles of the Act. Managers understood their responsibilities under the Act and when ‘best interests’ meetings should take place.

Staff were compassionate, kind and caring toward the people they supported. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and staff took opportunities to promote people’s independence. People were complimentary about the service and had no complaints. Staff felt valued and supported by the provider and registered manager and were happy in their job role.

The registered manager and provider checked the quality of the service to make sure people’s needs were met safely and effectively. Feedback was encouraged from people. The registered manager and provider did not understand their regulatory responsibilities to the local authority or the Care Quality Commission.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 10th February 2016.

Father Hudsons DCC provides domiciliary care across two supported living locations, to people with a learning disability in their own homes. Some people require 24-hour care. At the time of our inspection, 10 people were being supported. Eight people had moved to the new flats recently, and two people were in the process of moving. Two people were new to the service and plans were in place for more new people to move into the flats and be supported with their care needs.

The service had a 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.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. Relatives were also confident people were safe. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and were supported by the provider who acted on concerns raised and ensured staff followed safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified, minimised and flexed towards individual needs so people could be supported in the least restrictive way possible and build their independence.

People were supported with their medicines by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines safely. People told us their medicines were given in a timely way and as prescribed. Checks were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely, but the registered manager agreed these needed to be more robustly recorded so action was always taken in response to what was found.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs effectively. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability to support people who lived in the home. Staff told us they had not been able to work until these checks had been completed.

People told us staff asked for consent before supporting them in ways they were comfortable with. People were able to make their own decisions and staff respected their right to do so. Staff and the registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act.

People and relatives told us staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. We observed this in interactions between people, and records confirmed how people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. For example, they were supported to maintain any activities, interests and relationships that were important to them.

People had access to health professionals when needed and we saw the care and support provided was in line with what had been recommended. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver personalised care and gave staff information about people’s communication, their likes, dislikes and preferences. People were involved in how their care and support was delivered and, where people wanted this, staff worked with advocates to ensure people were supported effectively.

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager. They felt these would be listened to and responded to effectively and in a timely way. Staff told us the management team were approachable and responsive to their ideas and suggestions. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the support provided, but the provider was developing new systems which they hoped would be more robust and help the service to improve.

People who used the service were not able to speak with us by telephone because of their complex needs. We therefore spoke with the relatives of three of the people to ask their opinion of the support their family member received.

The relatives we spoke with told us that they were happy and satisfied with the service being provided. They told us, "I have always been, and continue to be, delighted with the care X receives," and "I am very happy with the way XX is looked after. The staff are all very kind and caring."

We saw that people had support plans and risk assessments in place that contained person centred information to assist staff with meeting people's care and support needs.

We found that robust recruitment processes were in place to ensure that staff employed by the provider were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff were positive about working for the organisation. We saw there were regular training sessions to enable staff to develop their skills and knowledge and provide effective care for people who used the service. “I love my job,” was a comment made by a member of staff.

We saw that there were processes in place for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service provided for people which included seeking their views.

We found that confidential information relating to people that used the service and staff was stored securely.