This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 1 August 2017. The last inspection took place on 4 August 2015. At this time the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations.

Huthnance Park provides accommodation for up to four people with complex needs. The service uses a detached house divided into three separate flats in the house and a detached two bedroomed bungalow in the grounds. There were three people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had 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.

There was a positive atmosphere at Huthnance Park and it was noticeable that staff and management put people at the centre of the service. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in the planning of care. Senior management, staff and relatives regularly discussed how to best support people living at Huthnance Park.

There were regular feedback opportunities for people to give their thoughts on how the service was working. Overall relatives were positive about the care and support provided to people, but we did find there was some frustration about the length of time it could take to implement new ideas. We were provided with some examples of this, which in order not to identify individuals we will not be providing specific details about.

Due to people’s communication needs we were unable to gain some people’s verbal views on the service and therefore observed staff interactions with two people who lived there. We observed that people were relaxed, engaged in their own choice of activities and appeared to be happy and well supported by the service. One person told us they were happy and felt safe living at Huthnance Park. Comments included; “This is my home. I am happy here and I’m doing very well”. A relative told us, “I’m very happy with the support and opportunities my [relative] has had since moving into Huthnance. They have some staff who are absolutely fantastic.”

We walked around the service and saw it was comfortable and personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes. Decoration and updating of the service was ongoing and we saw people’s individual flats had been decorated to meet their choices. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence. Staff consistently spent time speaking with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to and interacting with staff. Staff were trained and competent to provide the support individuals required.

Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training. Staff told us the training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively. Staff comments included, “The induction was quite full on because it was classroom based and for up to eight hours per day. But it was very good and did prepare me to do the job.” The staff team were supportive of each other and worked together to support people. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the people that lived at the service.

Robust recruitment procedures were used to make sure new staff were safe and competent to work with people at the service. Staff were trained to provide the support individuals needed.

The service were meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). 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

This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 4 August 2015. There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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. Huthnance Park provides accommodation for up to five people with complex needs. The service uses a detached house divided into four separate flats in the house and around the grounds. There were four people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

Due to people’s communication needs we were unable to gain some people’s verbal views on the service and therefore observed staff interactions with three people who lived there. We observed that people were relaxed, engaged in their own choice of activities and appeared to be happy and well supported by the service. One person told us they were happy and felt safe living at Huthnance Park. Comments included; “I am happy here. Huthnance is a nice place to live.” We walked around the service and saw it was comfortable and personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence. Staff consistently spent time speaking with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to and interacting with staff. Staff were trained and competent to provide the support individuals required.

Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training. Staff told us the training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively.

The staff team were supportive of each other and worked together to support people. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the people that lived at the service.

Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks chosen by themselves, which they told us they enjoyed. People had been included in planning their own menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted on. Some people were actively involved in meal preparation. Staff told us people could go out and do their own grocery shopping and sometimes people chose to shop on-line and have their order delivered to the service.

Visitors told us they were always made welcome and were able to visit at any time. People were able to see their visitors in their own flats. Relatives of people who used the service commented, “The staff have always responded quickly and efficiently to our calls and have always made us feel welcome at Huthnance”.

People knew how to complain and one person told us they would be happy to speak with the service manager if they had any concerns. We were given an example of an issue that had been raised and it was agreed there had been an appropriate management response to this which was acceptable to the person. One relative told us, “We have a very open relationship with staff and management at Huthnance and so if we have any concerns we feel comfortable talking to the staff and management about whatever it is.”

From discussions with relatives and documents we looked at, we saw that families were included in planning and agreeing to the care provided at the service. People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. A person told us, “I meet with my key worker and talk about my plan regularly. I have a copy of my support plan and know what it contains.”

Staff demonstrated that they knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their support and how they wished to live their lives. For example, staff told us about one person who did not wish to always be closely accompanied by support workers when accessing the local community. Staff were respectful of this and ensured the person had sufficient space to be alone while also maintaining the person’s safety.

We saw evidence that comprehensive quality assurance processes were regularly undertaken to ensure the service were aware of people’s views of the service and could monitor auditing processes at the service. This ensured an open service culture that is open to challenge and learning from issues affecting the quality of the service as they arise.

We inspected this service after receiving anonymous information of concern in respect of staffing levels at the service. During our inspection we used the evidence gathered in relation to the outcomes we inspected to answer our five key 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 information gathered during observations of people who used the service and conversations with relatives, staff and management of Huthnance Park.

Is the service safe?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be safe.

We found Huthnance Park to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards . Management demonstrated to us a good understanding of the legal requirements of the legislation.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported.

There were robust systems in place to manage the medication of people who used the service and this helped ensure their safety.

Is the service effective?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be effective.

Care plans and risk assessments were regularly assessed by staff members. The risk assessments reviewed overall progress, changes in physical health, well-being and behaviour of the person who used the service. The plans identified the risks to the person and how they should be managed and reviewed.

Staff had up to date training and this was focused on the needs of the people living in the home

Is the service caring?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be caring.

We observed positive and caring interactions between staff and people who used the service. A relative we spoke with told us: “They’ve gone out of their way to give X a good life.”

People’s individual needs and preferences were met and staff had a good knowledge of the people they supported.

Is the service responsive?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be responsive.

People’s care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Individual preferences, likes and dislikes were recorded.

A satisfactory complaints policy was in place and this was provided in easy read to meet the needs of the people using the service.

Is the service well-led?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be well-led.

Staff and families told us management were approachable and listened to any concerns or suggestions and acted upon them.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and they were competent and knowledgeable.

We looked at the care and treatment records of the two people who used the service. One person was out pursuing interests of their choosing and the other person invited us to see their flat and asked through a member of staff if we would not talk with them.

We spoke with the managing director who is the Nominated Individual, registered manager and four members of staff about the service. We were told and saw evidence from the care records that people's needs for various reasons could not be met in conventional ways and a different approach was required. One member of staff said that "we consult widely with other professionals to develop a person centred transition".

We made telephone contact with five professional people who all confirmed how impressed they were with the service. One person said "when the flats were designed the provider accepted a lot of advice from us and was receptive to changes that we

recommended".

The manager told us and we evidenced that the service is a paper less and throughout the day we were shown care records, policies and procedures, recruitment and training records which were recorded on the laptop. We were told that the level of permission to gain access to certain levels of information was dependent on staff position in the company.