This inspection was carried out on the 27 January 2017 and was announced.

Homeville is a privately owned care home providing personal care and support to people who may have learning disabilities and complex needs. People may also have behaviours that challenge and communication and emotional needs. There was one person living at the service at the time of the inspection.

The service is a terraced property close to the centre of Margate. People had their own bedroom which contained their own personal belongings and possessions that were important to them. The service had access to a vehicle which was shared with the provider’s other nearby service, to access facilities in the local area and to access a variety of activities.

There was a registered manager working at the service and they were supported by a deputy manager. They were also the registered manager of the other service owned by the provider which was close by. 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 and staff supported us throughout the inspection.

We previously carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 16 February 2016. Two breaches of regulations were found. We issued requirement notices relating to safe care and treatment and good governance. We asked the provider to take action and the provider sent us an action plan. The provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook this inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. We found the breaches in the regulations had been met.

At the previous inspection risks to people were assessed but guidance had not always been available to make sure all staff knew what action to take to keep people as safe as possible. At this inspection improvements had been made. Risks to people's safety were assessed and there was guidance for staff on how to keep risks to a minimum. Risk assessments identified people's specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised.

The registered manager and staff carried out other environmental and health and safety checks to ensure that the environment was safe and that equipment was in good working order. On occasions the water temperature at the service had exceeded the recommended level and this had not been highlighted and no action had been taken. The deputy manager took immediate action to rectify this shortfall. Accidents and incidents were recorded and were reviewed to identify if there were any patterns or if lessons could be learned to support people more effectively to ensure their safety.

Emergency plans were in place so if an emergency happened, like a fire, staff knew what to do. There were regular fire drills so people knew how to leave the building safely.

At the previous inspection all systems within the service were not being checked by the provider. Records were not completed to demonstrate that when shortfalls had been identified action had been taken to make improvements. Feedback was not being gathered from all stakeholders to improve the quality of the service. At this inspection improvements had been made .The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. There were records to show that any identified shortfalls had been addressed and improvements made. The provider asked people, staff and relatives their opinion about the service and had included other stakeholders like doctors or community specialists about what action they thought the provider could take to make improvements

Staff were aware of the ethos of the service, in that they were there to work together to provid

This inspection took place on 15 February 2016, was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector.

Homeville is a privately owned care home providing personal care and support to up to three people who may have learning disabilities and complex needs. People may also have behaviours that challenge and communication and emotional needs. There were two people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

The service is a terraced property close to the centre of Margate. Each person had their own bedroom which contained their own personal belongings and possessions that were important to them. The service had access to a vehicle which was shared with the providers other nearby service, to access facilities in the local area and to access a variety of activities.

There was a registered manager working at the service and they were supported by a deputy manager. They were also the registered manager of the other service owned by the provider which was close by. 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 and staff supported us throughout the inspection.

The registered manager had worked at the service for many years firstly as a support worker and then as the deputy manager. They became the registered manager of the service in August 2015. They knew people and staff well and had good oversight of everything that happened at the service. The registered manager and deputy led by example and promoted the ethos of the service which was to support people to achieve their full potential and to be as independent as possible. The registered manager and provider made sure there were regular checks of the safety and quality of the service. They listened to peoples’ views and opinions and acted on them.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Some of people at the service had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to make complex decisions about their care and welfare. At the time of the inspection the registered manager had applied for DoLs authorisations for people who were at risk of having their liberty restricted and some approvals had been granted. There were records to show who people’s representatives were, in order to act on their behalf if complex decisions were needed about their care and treatment.

Before people decided to move into the service their support needs were assessed to make sure the service would be able to offer them the care that they needed. People indicated that they were satisfied and happy with the care and support they received. People were involved with the day to day running of the house. The service was planned around people’s individual preferences and care needs. The care and support people received was personal to them.

People had an allocated key worker. Key workers were members of staff who took a key role in co-ordinating a person’s care and support and promoted continuity of support between the staff team. People had key workers that they got on well with. Staff had built up relationships with people and were familiar with their life stories, wishes and preferences. This continuity of support had resulted in the building of people’s confidence to enable them to make more choices and decisions themselves and become more independent.

Staff asked people if they were happy to do something before they took any action. They explained to people what they were going to do and gave them the time they needed to respond. Throughout the inspection pe

The inspection team was made up of one inspector. Time was spent in the home looking at care records, talking to staff and people who used the service. We looked at people's plans of care, staffing records and quality assurance processes. We set out to answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, the staff supporting them and looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by staff who focused on positive risk assessment to support people to maintain their independence. For example, risk assessments were designed to enable people to manage risks associated with what people could do, rather than limiting people’s abilities by focusing on what they could not do.

People told us they felt safe and we observed staff who demonstrated that they understood how to protect people's rights and safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents, incidents, and concerns. This reduced the risks to people who used the service and helped the service to continually develop.

We found that the service was safe, clean and hygienic. We saw that the service was going through a renovation programme to ensure that the environment continued to meet people's needs safely.

People's care needs and the qualifications, skills and experience of the staff were taken into account when making decisions about staffing numbers required to the meet the needs of people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and developmental needs had been identified in care plans where required. People who used the service said that they had been involved in the planning of their care and we found that the care plans reflected their current needs.

People's needs were taken into account with the layout of the service, which enabled people to move around freely and safely.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us "The staff are good, they help me."

We found that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. We observed that people were supported by staff who focused on person centred support.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities of their choice both in and outside of the service. We found that surveys were regularly sent to people who used the service, relatives and professionals. We saw that the feedback the service received was positive.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system and records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. This helped to ensure that the quality of service was maintained.

People who used the service told us or indicated that they were happy with the care and support they recived. One person said "I like the people who help me". another person told us "I like living here and I like to go on holiday". We found that people were supported to develop their independence and exercise their rights to choice and control over their lives. To help us to understand the experiences people had, we used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) tool. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is happening in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences.

We found that overall people had positive experiences. The staff supporting them knew what support they needed and they respected their wishes The support that we observed being given to people matched what their care plan said they needed. Care and support was delivered in a person focused manner and we saw that staff created opportunities for people to make daily choices and decisions.