This was an announced inspection which took place on 19 December 2016. We had previously carried out an inspection in August 2015 when we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014; these related to the lack of refresher training for staff and the need for more robust quality assurance processes. During this inspection we found the required improvements had been made and the provider was now meeting these regulations.

Freedom Supported Living is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service specialises in providing support to people with a learning disability. Support is provided both to individuals and to people living in small group settings. At the time of our inspection there were four people using the service.

The provider had a registered manager in place as required by the conditions of their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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. The registered manager was also the sole director of the company which owned the service.

People told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them and considered staff had the right skills and experience to meet their needs. They told us staff were kind, caring and respectful of the fact that they were supporting them in their own homes.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. They were able to tell us of the action they would take to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse. They told us they considered they would be fully supported by the registered manager should they report any concerns.

People who used the service were involved in the recruitment of staff; this helped to ensure staff had the appropriate qualities and interests to support people to achieve their goals. Recruitment processes in the service were sufficiently robust to protect people from the risk of unsuitable staff.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safe administration of medicines. Although people who used the service were responsible for the administration of their own medicines at the time of this inspection, we noted all staff had completed training in the safe handling of medicines; this helped to ensure they were able to support people to take their medicines as prescribed should this be necessary.

Staff were aware of how to manage risks of cross infection. We noted people who used the service were supported to maintain the cleanliness and safety of their homes.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and where necessary had taken appropriate action to safeguard the rights of people who used the service. People told us staff always respected the choices and decisions they made.

Systems to monitor staff training had improved since our last inspection. An annual training plan was in place and staff were clear about when refresher training was required. Staff also received regular supervision to help ensure they were able to provide effective support to people who used the service.

People who used the service received the support they needed to attend health appointments. Staff encouraged people to make healthy nutritional choices.

There were opportunities for people who used the service to comment on the support they received. We noted that people had been involved in review meetings to help ensure they were supported to achieve the goals which were important to them.

Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service. All the people we spoke with told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable. People who used the service told us they felt able to contact the registered manager o

We spoke with the four people who were supported by the service at the time of our visit. They told us they were very satisfied with the support they received from the service. Comments included, “Support from Freedom is fantastic. We have our own independence” and “I get really good support and feel like I’ve made progress”.

People told us they had choice about how their support needs were met. We saw people were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

We found people received care and support which met their needs and protected their rights.

We found there were systems in place for the safe administration of medicines.

We found staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people and staff were professional, caring and friendly.

We found suitable arrangements were in place to manage an effective process for identifying, receiving and handling complaints for people who received a service from Freedom Supported Living.

At our last inspection visit in July 2012 we had concerns that the provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received and that recruitment procedures did not meet the requirements of current regulations. We were also concerned that staff had not received on-going supervision or training to enable them to develop.

Following the inspection visit the provider sent an action plan informing us the recruitment and selection procedure had been amended and a process of quality assurance mechanisms had been put into place. We were told that records relating to training and supervision of staff had been improved.

We spoke with three people who used the service, all of whom told us they were extremely happy with the support they received. One person told us, “I get fantastic support from Freedom”, while another commented, “I get the support I need to do anything I want to do”.

We revisited the service and looked at the records of the four staff employed by the service. We found the necessary arrangements were in place to ensure people were protected from unsuitable staff.

We spoke with one member of staff who told us they felt well supported and confident in carrying out their responsibilities. We saw evidence that staff were provided with training relevant to their role.

We found that there were adequate systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.

People told us they were satisfied with the quality of care and support they received. We

were told the staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people and that the staff were professional, caring and friendly.

The three people we spoke with made various positive comments about the staff team. Comments made to us included:

"My confidence and ability has soared with the help and support the staff give me"

"They treat me well and help me do things I never thought I would be able to do."

People were provided with care plans which were reviewed regularly and updated when

required.

People said they felt safe living in the home and were able to discuss concerns or issues

with the staff if they wished to.

This was an announced inspection which took place on 27 August and 7 September 2015. We had previously carried out an inspection in October 2013 when we found the service to be meeting all the regulations we reviewed.

Freedom Supported Living is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service specialises in providing support to people with a learning disability. Support is provided both to individuals and to people living in small group settings. At the time of our inspection there were 4 people using the service.

The provider had a registered manager in place as required by the conditions of their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

We identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People who used the service told us they felt safe with staff from Freedom Supported Living. They told us staff were caring and always supported them to make their own decisions and choices. People told us how they had developed their independent living skills as a result of the support they received.

Staff were safely recruited and rotas were flexible to allow people’s individual needs to be met. People who used the service had the opportunity to comment on the support they received.

Staff knew what action to take should they witness or suspect abuse. They told us they had received the training they needed for their role. However we noted improvements needed to be made to ensure staff received refresher training in topics such as first aid, fire safety and food hygiene. Staff told us they had also not received any training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This legislation is intended to support people to make their own decisions wherever possible.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safe administration of medicines. Where 24 hour support was provided staff undertook regular checks to help ensure the safety and security of the premises.

People who used the service received the support they needed to attend health appointments. Staff encouraged people to make healthy nutritional choices.

There were opportunities for people who used the service to comment on the support they received. We noted that people had been involved in review meetings to help ensure they were supported to achieve the goals which were important to them.

Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service. All the people we spoke with told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable. People who used the service told us they felt able to contact the registered manager or any other member of staff should they have any concerns regarding the support they received.

Some quality assurance systems were in place including audits of the locations where support was provided. However these needed to be further developed to help ensure the registered manager was driving forward improvements in the service.