Our inspection took place on 9 December 2016 and was unannounced.

The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to three people who have a learning disability. On the day of our inspection there were two people living at the home. A third person who received respite care was not present.

At our last inspection on 26 November 2015 we found that some improvements were needed to ensure that people’s privacy and dignity was respected. The quality monitoring of the service needed to improve to ensure that people had up to date care plans. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

The provider had interim management arrangements in place at the time of the inspection. The previous registered manager had cancelled their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2016. We were advised that the provider would be submitting an application to register a manager in the next few months. 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.

People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse because staff had been trained to recognise and report abuse. Risks associated with people’s everyday living had been identified and plans were in place to help to reduce risks. Staff were recruited safely and staffing levels ensured that people were safe and received the care and support that they needed in the way that they preferred. People received their prescribed medicines by staff who had been trained to do this safely.

Staff were provided with the training they needed to meet peoples specific needs. Staff had regular supervision to reflect on and develop their practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) were understood by staff who ensured that they sought people’s consent and did not unlawfully restrict their liberty. People’s dietary needs were met and they were supported to eat and drink sufficiently. People had access to a range of health care professionals to meet their healthcare needs.

People were supported by staff who were kind and friendly. Staff involved people in identifying their needs and preferences. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and respected them as individuals. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests and maintain positive relationships with their relatives.

Staff described the management style as supportive and they felt motivated. They had the training and support to meet people’s specific needs. The quality of the service was regularly monitored to ensure it remained safe and responsive to people’s needs. People’s feedback was sought and there was a system in place to act upon feedback. The process for responding to complaints was effective.

The inspection took place on the 26 November 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on the 5 June 2013 the provider was compliant with the regulations inspected.

Inshore Support Limited, 10 Melbourne Road is registered to provide accommodation and support for three people, who may have a learning disability. On the day of our inspection there were two people living at the home with a further person using the service as part of a carers break (respite).

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.

Relatives told us that people were safe.

Medicines were being administered safely.

We found that there was sufficient staff to keep people safe.

Staff were able to get the support they needed to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people appropriately.

People’s consent was sought before staff supported them.

We found that the provider had the appropriate systems in place to ensure the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met and people’s human rights were not being restricted.

People had access to health care professionals to ensure their health care needs were met.

Staff were caring and kind.

People’s privacy and dignity were not always respected.

Relatives told us they were able to ensure people’s choices were captured as part of the assessment and care planning process.

A complaints process was in place so people and their relatives were able to raise any complaints as needed.

We found that documentation within people’s care records were being duplicated and the information was not always current.

The quality assurance checking process carried out by the registered manager and provider was not effective in identifying the concerns with the quality care records.

The provider had a questionnaire in place so they were able to gather views on the service so where improvements were identified these could be made.

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. There were three people living at the home on the day of the inspection. One person was out visiting their family on the day of our inspection, one person was unwell and unable to talk with us and the other person was unable to use verbal communication so we observed how they were supported. We spoke with two members of staff, the senior care who was on duty and three relatives by phone after the inspection.

Relatives told us they were involved in the care planning process and would have consented to care. We did not see any records to show people or their relatives consented to care.

Care plans were person centred and provided staff with the appropriate information to care for people. One relative said, “Yes staff do know people’s care needs”.

We observed that the home was clean and tidy and there was an infection control procedure in place that staff followed. One relative said, “Yes very clean”.

We looked at staff working rotas that showed that sufficient numbers of staff were provided at all times to ensure people’s care and support needs were met.

People had access to a complaints procedure in a format they could understand and complaints were monitored to find out if there were any trends.

We visited the home on 18 May 2012. We spoke to two health and social care professionals who have visited the home. At the time of our visit there were two people who were absence from the home. One person was on holiday with two care workers. The other person was visiting relatives. We met the one person remaining at the home and were able to observe their care.

During our visit we found that care workers treated the person with dignity and respect. Care workers were kind and caring in their approach and supported the person in a respectful manner.

People living at the home were given the opportunity to be involved in how the service was run. Records confirmed that staff had regular meetings with people living at the home to seek their views.