This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 28 March 2017.

Hazel View is a residential care home which is registered to provide a service for up to five people with learning disabilities. Some people had other associated difficulties including needing support with behaviours which could be distressing and/or harmful. There were five people living there on the day of the visit. The service offers accommodation in a domestic sized house, over two floors. The home is one of eight houses in a small community provided by Purley Park Trust Limited.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

There is a registered manager running the service. 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 service was safe, improvements had been made since the last inspection. Staff who had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures kept people as safe as possible. Staff understood how to protect people and followed the relevant procedures. General risks and risks to individuals were identified and action was taken to reduce them.

People’s needs were met and they were supported safely by adequate numbers of staff. The service made sure, that as far as possible, staff were recruited safely and were suitable to work with the people who live in the home. People were given their medicines appropriately, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff.

The service remained effective. People’s health and well-being needs were met by staff who were well trained and responded effectively to people’s current and changing needs. The service sought advice from and worked with health and other professionals to ensure they met people’s health and well-being needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

The service continued to be caring and responsive. The staff team were committed and provided care with kindness and respect. Care staff were attentive, responsive and knowledgeable about the needs of individuals. Individualised care planning ensured people’s equality and diversity was respected. People were provided with activities, according to their needs, abilities and preferences.

The registered manager was highly thought of by people who use the service and the staff Team. She was described as approachable and supportive. The quality of care the service provided was assessed, reviewed and improved, as necessary.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in post at the home. However, the acting manager was planning to start the registration process to become a registered manager for Hazel View. In this report we will refer to them as the manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law as does the provider.

This inspection was unannounced. Hazel View is one of eight separate residential care homes within Purley Park Trust Estate. Hazel View provides personal care and support for up to five people who have learning disabilities. There were five people living at the home when we visited.

We looked at the provider’s recruitment processes. It is a legal requirement for the provider to obtain full employment history together with a satisfactory written explanation of any gaps in employment. In one out of three staff files we looked at, employment history and gaps were not fully explored.

People and their relatives felt safe at Hazel View and they were protected from abuse. Staff knew how to identify if people were at risk of abuse and knew what to do to ensure they were protected.

People and relatives told us good things about the service they received. Our observations and the records we looked at confirmed the positive descriptions people and relatives had given us. Staff understood the needs of the people and we saw care was provided with kindness and compassion. People and their families told us they were happy with their care.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled, and provided care in a safe way. Staff received a thorough induction when they started work at the home. They understood their roles and responsibilities, as well as the values and philosophy of the service which we saw were put into daily practice. The staff had also completed extensive training to ensure the care provided to people was safe and effective. The home ensured there were enough qualified and knowledgeable staff to meet people’s needs at all times.

The home was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The DoLS provide a lawful way to deprive someone of their liberty, provided it is in their own best interests or is necessary to keep them from harm. Staff had been trained to understand when and how an application to deprive someone of their liberty should be made. The manager was knowledgeable about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They had taken appropriate action with the local authority to determine if anyone was being restricted of their rights and liberties. At the time of our visit no one was deprived of their liberty and no applications were made. Staff were following the principles of MCA when supporting people who lacked capacity to make a decision.

Throughout our inspection we saw examples of appropriate support that helped make the home a place where people felt included and consulted. People and their families were involved in the planning of their care and were treated with dignity, privacy and respect.

The provider had employed skilled staff and took steps to make sure the care was based on local and national guidance. Staff were knowledgeable and focused on following the best practice at the home making sure people received appropriate care and support.

The manager assessed and monitored the quality of care consistently with the help of other managers on the estate, the operations manager and the chief executive of the company. The home encouraged feedback from people and families, which they used to make improvements to the service.

We were welcomed into the house. We met all five of the people living in Hazel View and spoke with three of them. We also spoke with four members of staff.

People appeared happy and relaxed and we saw that they were spoken to with respect. They were offered choices and encouraged to make decisions.

We saw that staff knew the people living in Hazel View well. The care and support that we observed reflected the guidance in the support plans. People told us that they “really liked the staff” and that “they look after me well.” One person told us how they had been out to an activity in the morning and it had been “fantastic.”

The care plans gave staff guidance on how to support people in each aspect of their life. Staff we spoke with told us they found them clear and concise.

People were protected from the risk of inadequate nutrition. They were involved in choosing what they ate and drank. Staff supported them to make healthy choices.

Medications were ordered, handled and stored appropriately. There were processes in place to ensure they were safely administered.

Records were accurate. They were held securely and destroyed in line with policy.

We met with four of the five people living in Hazel View. They welcomed us into their home and were happy to show us around. They talked to us about their activities and what they liked to do in the house. Two people told us they liked living in the house. They also said they liked the staff.

We saw that people were involved in what happened in the house and that they were offered choices and their decisions were respected. We saw that they were referred to by their preferred name and treated with dignity. We observed that the care and support offered to the people living in Hazel View reflected what was recorded in their support plans.

We saw that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet peoples’ needs.

We found that the house had been maintained, kept clean and tidy and provided sufficient space for the people that lived there.

There was a clear complaints policy and staff members made sure that everyone knew what to do if they wanted to make a complaint.

People living in Hazel View did not communicate their views to us on the day of our visit about their experiences of living in the home. However we saw that people were involved with their care.

We observed interaction between people who lived and worked at the home so have included our observations in this report.