This inspection took place on 10 July 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a service for people who may be out during the day, we needed to be sure that someone would be in. At our last inspection on 5 May 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection on we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

Homewards Limited - 48 Leonard Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Homewards Limited - 48 Leonard Road provides care and support for up to 4 people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of our inspection there were 4 people 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe with staff and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to safeguard people against harm and abuse. People’s risk assessments were completed, regularly reviewed and gave sufficient information to staff on how to provide safe care. Staff kept detailed records of people’s accidents and incidents. Staff wore appropriate protection equipment to prevent the risk of spread of infection. Medicines were stored and administered safely. The home environment was clean.

Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. 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 legislation protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves or whom the state has decided need to be deprived of their liberty in their best interest. We saw people were able to choose what they ate and drank. People told us they enjoyed the food. The home was well decorated and adapted to meet the needs of people using the service.

People told us that they were well treated and the staff were caring. We found that care records were in place which included information about how to meet a person’s individual and assessed needs. People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service. People had access to a wide variety of activities. People’s end of life wishes were explored.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and we found that complaints were investigated and where possible resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and listened to concerns. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place.

We inspected Homewards Limited - 48 Leonard Road on 5 May 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.

Homewards Limited - 48 Leonard Road is a care home providing accommodation and support with personal care for men with learning disabilities. The home is registered for three people. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support to three people.

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 and their relatives told us they felt the home was safe, staff were kind and compassionate and the care 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 registered manager in place and 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.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. At the time of this inspection 48 Leonard Road was providing care and support to three people. We spoke with one person living at the home to obtain their views of the support provided, the home manager and two members of staff. We also looked at records and observed the care provided.

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us they were happy and safe. Comments from people included, "This is my home."

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. We found risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage and minimise the risk had been put in place. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager told us that no applications had been made to deprive people of their liberty but staff understood how to submit one and follow the correct process. This meant people would be safeguarded from any potential abuse.

The service liaised with the emergency services and arrangements were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

Is the service effective?

During our visit, we found people were provided with the support they needed. We found staff knew people well and were aware of their individual preferences. We found staff treated people in a kind and caring manner. There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere throughout the home.

Care files we checked confirmed that initial assessments had been carried out by the staff before people moved into the home. This was to ensure the home was able to effectively meet the needs of the people. Managers' were accessible to staff for advice and support and we saw people being able to access the manager as needed.

Is the service caring?

Relatives in the quality survey said, "Our [family member] has been treated with dignity." During our observation we saw the interactions between staff and people who used the service were kind and helpful. Interactions between staff and people who used the service were very relaxed and took account of the needs of the people who used the service. Staff understood the need to recognise and respect the diversity and human rights of people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

Staff told us the care and support provided was flexible to the person's individual needs and adjustments could be made where required. Staff said they informed the manager if they felt any change in needs was required and the support was reviewed and updated in the care plan. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and the manager and staff spoke with relatives on a regular basis and would deal with any issues promptly.

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. There were good relationships with local GPs and other care providers to ensure the needs of the people who used the service were met.

Staff had regular meetings and were kept updated about any information during the daily handover sessions. This helped to maintain consistency in the running of the service and to ensure staff were aware of relevant information. Feedback was sought by way of relative/friend satisfaction surveys, staff surveys and 1:1 sessions with people who used the service.

The service had a comprehensive quality assurance system in place. Daily and monthly audits were completed such as a premises check and cleanliness of the home. This ensured a timely response could be given to any issues and the service could maintain and improve quality at all times.

We spoke to two people living at the home, the third person had gone out for an activity. One person said "I'm going to the cafe today and will have some biscuits". We observed two people go out to the local cafe.

People or their next of kin signed consent for the care plan, agreeing to stay in the home and for the use of their photograph. We looked at three care plans and found them to be person centred and focused on people's needs. All aspects of support and different tasks were shown in picture format which ensured people at the home were involved in their care.

We were shown pictures from a birthday party that had happened recently at the home and we were told by the person that they had cake and their family came over. We spoke to a relative who told us they were at the birthday party and it was nice. We also looked at pictures from a recent gardening class that the home had provided. This all supported people's emotional wellbeing.

The home was clean and tidy and people at the home were wearing clean clothes. The registered manager told us that it is very important that people at the home always are clean and that the home is clean at all times.

Staff went through appropriate checks and the home ensured that they were suitably qualified to care for the people at the home.

There was a complaints policy which was clear and available in different formats. No complaints had been made at the home.

There were three people living at the service at the time of this inspection. We spoke to one individual at length but other people had limited verbal communication abilities. We were able to observe the people for a limited period before they left for daytime activities and found that they interacted well with staff who they clearly trusted.

We found that staff we spoke to were knowledgeable about their role and responsibilities. People were being cared for by trained and competent staff. who supported them to lead fulfilling lives. People were encouraged to make informed choices and were protected from harm.

The house was clean and tidy, with mementos of people's lives on display. However, some parts of the home were in need of refurbishment.

People told us that they were happy at the home and liked their rooms and going out into the community.