Our inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 February 2016.

The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to nine people. At the time of our inspection nine people lived at the home. Two of whom were there short term. People lived with a learning disability and/or other related needs.

At our last inspection of October 2013 the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.

The manager was registered with us as is required by law. 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 staff had received training on procedures they should follow to ensure the risk of harm and/or abuse was reduced.

The staff had been trained to manage medicines safely. Medicines were given to people in the way that they preferred and as they had been prescribed.

The staff were helpful, kind and caring and were provided in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs.

The recruitment processes the provider followed ensured that unsuitable staff were not employed.

Staff received induction training and the day to day support and guidance they needed to ensure they met people’s needs and kept them safe.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This ensured that people received care in line with their best interests and would not be unlawfully restricted.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their care. If they were unable to their relatives were involved in how their care was planned and delivered.

Staff supported people to have meals that they enjoyed and that met their dietary and cultural needs.

People received assessments and/or treatment when it was needed from a range of health care professionals which helped to prevent deterioration of their health and well-being.

People were offered and enabled to engage in recreational activities that they enjoyed and met their preferred needs.

Systems were in place for people to raise their concerns or complaints if they had a need.

People, relatives and staff all felt that the service was well-led. Quality monitoring systems were in place and people’s feedback was sought that ensured that the service was run in the best interests of the people who lived at the home.

On the day of our visit there were seven people living at the home. People who used the service were out attending day services. We spoke with people when they returned home.

We looked at two care records and we spoke with two people about the care and support they received. One person said “I like living here”. Another person said “I like it here; I like the food and my keyworker”. We spoke with two members of staff.

Every person had individual care plans which people or family members had consented to. This meant that people’s care was planned and delivered in a way they wanted.

People’s needs had been assessed and personalised care plans developed. Individual risk assessments had been completed with identified control measures. This meant that people are protected from the risk of receiving care that is inappropriate or unsafe.

We saw infection control procedures and audits as well as making observations in the home. The provider told us that they would be making some improvements in this area. This would ensure that people continue to be protected from the risk of infection.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place. This ensured that staff had the knowledge, skills and experience to meet people’s needs.

Quality management procedures were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Quality audits were undertaken and action taken to learn from issues identified. This ensured that people received a quality service.

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. There were six people living at the home on the day of the inspection. We spoke with two people, two staff members, the deputy manager and the owner.

People’s privacy was respected throughout the day. We found that people were encouraged to be involved in their care planning.

We found that people received care that met their needs, in a timely and appropriate manner. One person said, “I like it here.”

Arrangements were in place to ensure the safe handling of medicines. Regular checks were carried out to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

There were enough staff to look after people at the home. One person said, “Staff are nice.”

Systems were in place to record complaints and comments although none had been received.

49 Adshead Road provides good quality care to people with learning disabilities in a warm and homely environment. We saw that staff had a good rapport with people living in the home , who looked relaxed and content. The staff encourage people to help with the running of the home to promote their independence. People are supported to go into the community to participate in activities they enjoy such as ten pin bowling and walking in the local parks. People we spoke to said they were happy living in the home. Some people had limited verbal communication skills so we spent time observing care practices.There are quality monitoring systems in place to ensure the home is run with the best interests of people living there.