Haroldstone Home is a residential care home for up to five adults with a learning disability and or autistic spectrum disorder. The service is set in a terraced house providing accommodation to people over two floors. The ground floor communal areas comprise of an open plan kitchen and dining room and a sitting room. All rooms are of single occupancy. Haroldstone Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of inspection, four people were using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

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.

People told us they felt safe living at the service and relatives told us staff were reliable. The provider identified, assessed and mitigated risks associated to people’s health, care and mobility needs. Risk assessments were easy to follow and regularly reviewed. Staff understood risks people faced and how to provide safe care. People were happy with medicines support and medicines administration records were appropriately maintained.

The service was clean and well maintained. Staff followed appropriate infection control practices. There were sufficient and suitable staff employed to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff received regular training and supervision, and worked well as a team to provide effective care. People were happy with the food and their nutrition and hydration needs were met by staff who understood their needs. Staff supported people to access healthcare services to maintain their health. 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 in the service supported this practice. Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and people told us they were given choices.

People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. Staff were trained in equality and diversity measures and understood the importance of respecting people’s privacy.

Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and people told us they received personalised care. People’s care plans were person-centred and provided sufficient information to staff on how to support people. People and relatives told us they had never made a complaint but would speak to the registered manager if they were not happy about anything.

The service was well-led by the registered manager who understood people’s needs and worked well with people and staff to improve the care delivery. There were effective audits and monitoring systems in place to ensure people’s safety and quality of care.

We inspected Haroldstone Home on 13 January 2016. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The service provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to five adults with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of 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.

The experiences of people who lived at the home were positive. People told us they felt safe living at the home, staff were kind and compassionate and the care they received was good. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.

People’s needs were assessed and their preferences identified as much as possible across all aspects of their care. Risks were identified and plans in place to monitor and reduce risks. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. People were cared for by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

The registered manager and staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA and DoLS is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves or whom the state has decided their liberty needs to be deprived in their own best interests.

People told us they liked the food provided and we saw people were able to choose what they ate and drank. People had access to health care professionals as appropriate.

People’s needs were met in a personalised manner. We found that care plans were in place which included information about how to meet a person’s individual and assessed needs. The service had a complaints procedure in place.

The service had a management structure with clear lines of accountability. Staff told us the service had an open and inclusive atmosphere and the registered manager was approachable and accessible. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place. These included surveys, audits and staff and resident meetings.

We found that although some people were not able to verbalise their needs staff respected people's dignity by offering them options and did not make decisions for people where they could make their own.

We saw feedback from one professional in one person’s file stating “Staff have worked on developing skills with X in the last year and progress was observed.”

The home was clean and tidy on the day of our visit. Staff told us they carried out cleaning duties throughout their shift. This was dictated by the shift plan, which we saw a copy of.

We found that there were adequate numbers of staff working within the home and they were suitably qualified to meet people's needs.

We saw a copies of various meetings held within the home. These showed that staff discussed what improvements were needed within the service.

People who use the service and their carers were involved in making decisions about the care and treatment given. Relatives confirmed they were invited to and attended care planning and review meetings. One relative that was at the home when we visited said they attended all review meetings which take place every three months.

People who use the service attended regular weekly activities. One user attended Scope Day Centre three times a week and we saw in users files that they have attended courses such as drama classes, soap making, pottery and arts and crafts classes at the local college.

The provider had clear policies and procedures in place that addressed safeguarding. Pictorial poster were also displayed on the notice board showing various forms of abuse and what people who use the service should do if they were concerned about abuse.

We saw evidence that regular staff training was provided by the organisation through internet based ‘e learning’ and in house training. Topics covered included mental capacity, moving and handling, food hygiene, safeguarding, supporting people with learning disabilities and health and safety.

The provider sent questionnaires to professionals and we saw a sample of these from August 2012. One stakeholder commented that “the service is very good. The service user clearly receives a very high standard of care and support. They endeavour to be person centred.”