Fernleigh House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care and support for up to six adults who have severe learning disabilities, complex behavioural needs and communication difficulties. Fernleigh House is a detached modern house decorated and furnished in a contemporary style. There are two lounges, two dining rooms, an arts and crafts area and sensory room. All the bedrooms are single and four have en-suite facilities. There is a large garden which is equipped with recreational facilities.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were safe using the services of Fernleigh House. Recruitment practices and safeguarding policies helped to protect people from harm. Detailed assessments provided good guidance for staff about how health care risks could be minimised and we found medicines were being, in general well managed. This helped to ensure people were kept safe. However, we made a recommendation about hand written entries on the Medication Administration Records (MARs) being signed, witnessed and countersigned, to ensure transcription errors were minimised.

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 of the service supported this practice.

Personal development for staff was an important aspect of the organisations ethos. This was supported by detailed induction programmes, regular supervisions, annual appraisals and a varied training schedule for all those who were employed. This helped to ensure the staff team was knowledgeable, competent and confident to deliver the care and support people needed.

Staff members were kind and caring towards those who used the service. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were consistently promoted. The staff team had received training in relation to equality and diversity. This helped to ensure that everyone was treated equally and were afforded the same opportunities.

Complaints were being well managed and people were offered appropriate choices at all times. The plans of care were person centred; providing staff with clear guidance about people’s assessed needs and how these needs were to be best met. This helped to ensure people received the care and support relevant to their individual health and social care needs.

Regular audits, surveys and risk assessments had been conducted, so the quality of service could be closely monitored. This helped to ensure people were receiving the care and support they required. Meetings for staff and service users were held at regular intervals. This enabled people to be involved in decisions about how the service was run.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Fernleigh House is a care home providing accommodation, personal care and support for up to 6 adults with severe learning disabilities, complex behavioural needs and communication difficulties. There were 5 people using the service when we inspected. Fernleigh House is a detached modern house decorated and furnished in a contemporary style. There are two lounges, two dining rooms and an arts and crafts area. All the bedrooms are single and four have en-suite facilities. There is a large garden which is equipped with recreational facilities.

The service had a registered manager in post, who was registered with The Commission on 17 March 2009. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People who used the service were protected from abuse because the provider had taken steps to minimise the risk of abuse. Decisions related to peoples care were taken in consultation with people who used the service, their next of kin and other healthcare professionals which helped to ensure their rights were protected.

People benefited by having person centred plans which were focused on the likes and abilities of the individual.

There was process in place to listen and act on the views and wishes of the people who use the service. People and their relatives told us the manager is pro active in addressing any issue of concern they may have.

There were six people living in the home when we visited. We met all of them. They all had communication difficulties and were unable to have a detailed conversation about the care and support they received. However where possible we talked with people in a general way and we observed how people were supported by staff. We also talked with some people’s relatives.

We saw the care and support staff gave to people during the inspection. We observed staff communicating with people. We saw that they were able to communicate effectively together. We saw staff supporting people in a calm, respectful and sensitive way.

People were out and about on activities throughout the inspection. We also saw from records that people were involved in activities most days.

Person centred care records were in place providing information about people. These were informative and updated frequently. They showed that people living in the home and their relatives were involved in decisions.

Fernleigh House was comfortable and homely. Each person had their own bedroom which was decorated and furnished in their own taste. Appropriate checks had been carried out to ensure the building was safe and secure.

Staff received appropriate training to assist them in providing good support to people.

Senior staff monitored the home effectively and sought the views of those involved in the home.

Fernleigh House was maintained and decorated for the comfort of the people living there. Bedrooms were personalised according to people’s wishes.

People using the service did not have mental capacity to give consent for their treatment and support. The home recognised this and there was evidence seen in care plans, that parents and advocates were consulted and agreed with the level of support being provided.

Staff we spoke with told us they worked closely with families so they felt involved and could make contributions of their own. A relative we spoke with told us, "They are very good at letting me know of any changes. We tend to speak with staff nearly everyday".

Staff we spoke with told us what actions they would take if they had concerns about people’s safety. One member of staff told us, ‘’ I would report any concerns to my manager first and if I was still concerned I would speak to a senior manager’’.

We saw records showing staff undertook training to give them the skills and knowledge to look after people properly. This would make sure they were confident, safe and competent. Staff we spoke with told us about their induction programme. One member of staff said,’’ The training was very thorough. I did training for two weeks before I could work’’.

Relatives we spoke with told us they had no complaints about the service but would be happy to raise their concerns directly with the managers or staff. One person told us, "I speak to staff everyday and would ask to speak to the manager if something was wrong".

Not everyone who was at the home was able to fully enter into a discussion about many aspects of their care and support due to the nature of their individual care and and support requirements. One person spoke about how the staff help them to work out what they like and dislike in relation to food and types of clothing.

However, it was clear from observing the way they, and the staff interacted and worked together that their involvement in their care and support is both valued and promoted.