We inspected 136 Langthorne Road on 20 April 2017. 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. At the last inspection on 27 January 2015 the service was rated as Good.

136 Langthorne Road is a care home providing personal care and support for people with learning disabilities. The home is registered for five people. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support to four people.

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.

The experiences of people who lived at the service were positive. People told us they felt the service was safe, staff were kind and the care they received was good. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.

Risk assessments were in place which provided guidance on how to support people safely. There was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed in a safe manner. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed.

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 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. We saw people were able to choose what they ate and drank.

Person centred support plans were in place and people and their relatives were involved in planning the care and support the received.

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 within the community. The provider had a complaint procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint.

Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and open. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place. These included surveys, audits and staff and resident meetings.

The service supported people with their finances. However financial records were not accurate for people. We have made a recommendation about financial records being checked more regularly.

We inspected 136 Langthorne Road on 27 January 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. At the last inspection in September 2013 the service was found to be meeting the regulations we looked at.

136 Langthorne Road is a care home providing personal care and support for people with learning disabilities. The home is registered for five people. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support to four 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 and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

We spoke with all the people who used the service and a relative and they told us they felt safe and were happy with the care and support provided. We found that systems were in place to help ensure people were safe. For example, staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and the abuse reporting procedures. People’s finances were managed and audited regularly by staff. Medicines were safely administered.

Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and followed the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We found 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.

Suitable arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The support plans contained a good level of information setting out how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. Care and support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and staff knew people well. The support plans included risk assessments. Staff had good relationships with the people living at the home and the atmosphere was happy and relaxed.

We observed interactions between staff and people living in the home and staff were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to attend meetings where they could express their views about the home.

We found that people were supported to access the local community and wider society. This included education opportunities. People using the service pursued their own individual activities and interests, with the support of staff if required.

There was a clear management structure in the home. People who lived at the home and staff felt comfortable about sharing their views and talking to the manager if they had any concerns. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities and staff told us the manager was always supportive. There were systems in place to routinely monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.

People we spoke with told us their privacy and dignity was maintained. The manager told us they knocked on people's door and waited for their response before they entered their room. We observed and heard people being spoken to in a respectful manner which maintained their dignity.

People we spoke with told us they liked living at the home. One person told us "I like living here." We found there were 'pre- admission' assessments in people's files which examined their care needs and how the service could support them.

People told us they felt safe in the home. One person told us "I feel safe, yes." We found there was a safeguarding policy in place and the provider was using a pan London safeguarding adult’s policy. There was documentary evidence of the service working with the local authority and social workers to ensure people were kept safe from harm.

People told us they liked staff. We found appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

People we spoke with told us they could suggest improvements about the service they received. We found people had completed questionnaires about the quality of the service and the provision of care they received.