The inspection took place on 10 July 2017. It was an announced visit, as we gave the provider notice the working day before the inspection. The home provided accommodation for up to eight persons with learning disabilities who require support with personal care. There were six people living in the home when we inspected.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At the last inspection in June 2015 the service was rated Good, with one area rated as Requires Improvement. This was because the service had not been fully compliant with requirements around the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found at this inspection in July 2017 that the service was compliant in this area and rated Good overall.

The home was safe and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse and had received relevant safeguarding training. Staff were confident in reporting incidents and accidents should they occur. People were safely supported to take their medicines as prescribed.

There were effective processes in place to assess, review and mitigate risks to individuals. Assessments had taken place regarding people’s individual risks and clear guidance was in place for staff to follow in order to reduce risk. Recruitment processes were in place to ensure that staff employed in the service were deemed suitable for the role.

Staff had received training in areas specific to the people they were supporting and this helped to make sure that people received care individual to their needs. Staff gained people’s consent before providing care.

One person had an authorised deprivation of their liberty (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)) in place and staff were able to explain how they promoted choice, and supported decision making, where people had variable capacity. The home complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported to access healthcare promptly wherever necessary. People were encouraged to eat a healthy balanced diet and supported to lose weight if they wished to. People were also encouraged to drink enough and make their own drinks where they were able.

People’s privacy and dignity were promoted and they had strong relationships with staff who were kind and compassionate and listened to them. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible, work towards life goals and make their own choices.

Staff had a thorough knowledge about the people they cared for and understood how to meet their needs. People planned their care with staff and relatives, and numerous activities were carried out in line with people’s preferences.

The management team was highly visible within the home and worked closely with the people living there. People and their families were encouraged to give their views on the service.

There were many systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and these were used to develop and improve the service.

Harvey Lane is registered to provide accommodation for up to eight people who require nursing or personal care. At the time of our inspection there were two people living at the service. Accommodation is provided on the ground floor of the two storey building and all bedrooms are single rooms with en suite facilities.

This unannounced inspection took place on 30 June 2015.

At our previous inspection on 12 March 2014 the provider was meeting the regulations that we assessed.

The service had a registered manager in post. They had been managing the service since January 2015 but had only recently become the registered manager in June 2015. 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 provider had a robust recruitment process in place which ensured that only staff who were deemed suitable to work with people using the service were offered employment. There was a sufficient number of suitably experienced staff working at the service. An induction process was in place to support and develop new staff.

Staff were trained in medicines administration and had their competence regularly assessed to ensure they adhered to safe practice. Staff had been trained in protecting people from harm and had a good understanding of what protecting people from harm meant.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about assessing people’s ability to make specific decisions about their care needs. Applications to lawfully deprive people of their liberty had been correctly submitted by the staff. However, one authorisation for a DoLS had expired on 10 March 2015. This meant that this person was being unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained by staff who provided care in a compassionate way. People were supported with their choices and preferences.

People’s care records were kept up-to-date by staff. This was to help ensure that people were provided with care and support based upon the person’s latest and most up-to-date care information. People were involved in their care planning and were supported by relatives or friends. However, the lack of staff who were able to converse fluently in the language of people using the service limited people’s involvement. An independent advocacy service was available if people required, or were identified as needing, this support.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals including dieticians, chiropodists or their GP. Health care professional advice was followed and adhered to by staff. Prompt action was taken in response to the people’s changing health care needs. People’s health risks health were assessed and managed according to each person’s needs.

People were supported to have sufficient quantities of the food and drinks that they preferred and staff encouraged people to eat healthily. People were supported with a diet which was appropriate for their needs to help ensure they achieved or maintained a healthy weight.

People, their relatives and staff were provided with information and guidance about how to raise compliments or concerns. Staff knew how to respond to any reported concerns or suggestions. Effective action was taken to address people’s concerns and to reduce the risk of any potential recurrence.

The provider and registered manager had audits and quality assurance processes and procedures in place. Staff were supported to develop their skills, increase their knowledge and obtain additional care related and management qualifications. Information gathered from care plan reviews and audits was analysed and then used to drive improvement in the quality of service provided.

The purpose of this inspection, carried out on 12 March 2014, was to follow-up on a previous area of non-compliance.

On 23 October 2013 we visited Harvey Lane. We found that the provider had not been undertaking regular supervision and appraisal meetings with staff. We also found that induction records for three recently-appointed members of staff were not available. This meant that staff had not received the appropriate professional support required to enable them to deliver safe and effective care.

We brought this to the attention of the provider. The provider supplied us with an action plan which demonstrated that they would be taking action to address this issue.

During our inspection on 12 March 2014 we found that improvements had been made.

We observed that staff were attentive to people’s needs and treated them with respect and dignity calling them by their name. We saw that staff sought people`s agreement before providing any support and assistance. We saw that the provider gave due consideration to people's capacity to consent, and that the provider had taken the relevant action to ensure that they complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw that staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and promoted their independence. We found that they had a good understanding and awareness of people’s care needs and preferences. We saw that care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated.

We saw that staff did not receive regular formal support and supervision from the manager.

We undertook this inspection to follow up on the provider’s progress to address concerns we had identified at our last visit on 4 July 2012. Although we spoke informally to people using the service during this visit, their feedback did not directly relate to the standards we assessed.

During our visit we spoke with all four people living in the home. They told us that staff encouraged them to talk about how they liked to be supported and how the home was run. People told us that they were happy living in the home, that they had all they needed and that there was enough going on to keep them occupied. They told us that they could make choices about what they ate and drank. They said they liked the food and had access to food and drink throughout the day. People told us that staff were “nice” and that they liked the people who supported them.

One person confirmed that they had been involved in improving the garden and growing plants from seed. Another person told us that they liked to spend time in their room when others in the house were being noisy.

People with whom we spoke told us they liked living at this home. They told us about some of the things they do during the day and described how staff supported them with their daily living. One person told us she had made some cakes and that they were going to be eaten at lunchtime. Another person told us he was going out to the shops with a member of staff that afternoon to do some personal shopping.