Florrie Robbins is a ‘care home’ for five people with learning disabilities and/or autism. There were four people living in the home when we visited. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

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.

At our last inspection on 10 March 2016 we rated the service as overall ‘good’ with requires improvement under the question of is the service ‘well-led.’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good’. Further information is in the detailed findings below. Audits and quality checks had been completed but they had not consistently identified where there were gaps in records. Risks were known by staff but risk assessments needed updating and care plans needed to be reviewed to ensure they contained up to date information about people’s routines.

People were kept safe in the home. Staff knew what signs may indicate abuse and how to report concerns. Staffing levels were good which enabled staff to spend time with people and medication was given and stored safely.

People’s consent was obtained before care and support was given and staff had access to training that was relevant to their role. People were supported to remain healthy by ensuring they had access to external health care professionals and to food they enjoyed.

Staff had developed caring and understanding relationships with the people they supported and knew their routines and preferences well. People’s independence was respected and promoted where possible and staff enjoyed working with people.

People had access to a range of activities in the local community and they enjoyed these along with the times visitors came in to deliver activities in the home. Information such as menus, complaints policy and future care plans were in an accessible format to help people understand information and make choices.

Audits and quality checks had been completed but they had not consistently identified where there were gaps in records. Risks were known by staff but risk assessments needed updating and care plans needed to be reviewed to ensure they contained up to date information about people’s routines.

Staff and relatives were happy with the way the service was being led.

Our inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 March2016. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. At our last planned inspection on 13 May 2013 the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.

Florrie Robbins is a care home which is registered to accommodate and deliver care to a maximum of five people. The home specialises in the care of people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection four people lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in post and they were present during our 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.

Arrangements were in place to monitor the service although some improvements were needed to ensure that these were effective at identifying where some improvements were needed.

Relatives told us that they were happy with the care their relative received. The registered manager and staff understood how to protect the people they supported from abuse, and knew what procedures to follow to report any concerns.

People were supported by staff that were kind, caring and respectful and knew them well.

Staff had a good understanding of risks associated with people’s care needs and knew how to support them. There were enough staff to support people safely in the home and whilst outside of the home. Recruitment procedures ensured that only staff of a suitable character to care for people were employed.

Medicines were stored and administered safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. People were supported to attend health care appointments when they needed to and received healthcare that supported them to maintain their wellbeing.

The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and supported people in line with these principles. People were supported to make everyday decisions themselves, which helped them to maintain their independence.

People were supported to eat and drink food that met their dietary requirements and that they enjoyed eating.

Staff felt that they had received adequate training to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge they needed to provide safe and appropriate support to the people who lived at the home.

On the day of our inspection there were four people living at the home. All of the people had limited verbal communication skills and difficulty expressing their wishes clearly. We therefore spent some time observing what life was like for people who lived at the home.

We followed the care of two people, this included looking at their care records, observing care and speaking with their relatives. This gave us an understanding of people's needs and their experience of the care provided. We also spoke with three members of staff and the registered manager.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. We saw that care was person centred and delivered in a manner that ensured people's dignity and respect.

People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. A relative that we spoke with told us, " I have no concerns with the care".

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard. A relative that we spoke with said, "Staff seem very good and are always friendly".

A system was in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

On the day of our inspection there were three people living at the home. All of the people had limited verbal communication skills and difficulty expressing their wishes clearly. We therefore spent some time observing what life was like for people who lived at the home. We spoke with five members of staff and the registered manager. We also spoke with three relatives. We pathway tracked one person to see how their care needs where being met.

We saw that care was not always person centred and delivered in a manner that promoted people's dignity and respect.

People did not always experience care and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Gaps and inconsistencies in training meant that some staff did not have the training that they needed to provide an appropriate standard of care.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided, however the system was not effective in identifying areas of poor practices.

The three people living at Florrie Robbins were unable to tell us verbally about their experience of living in the home, as people had communication needs related to their learning disability.

We met all three people and they generally appeared happy. People smiled as we spoke to them, and observed them in their home. One person showed some signs of being upset, and we believed this was due to them being hungry. We found meals were not offered to suit people's routines and snacks were not available to people during the day.

We found that people were being supported by staff they had got to know, and who cared about them. We saw and heard staff support people in ways that did not maintain people's dignity.