This inspection took place on 30 July 2018 and was announced. We announced the inspection because the service is a supported living service and we needed to be sure people and staff would be available when we called. A previous inspection in July 2015 rated the service as Good overall. At this inspection we found the provider was continuing to meet the requirements in all domains and continued to be rated Good.

Keele Drive provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. The service comprises of a community of eleven houses, ten of which had four bedrooms and the other, two. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 39 people, not all of whom required assistance with personal care. Only one person was being supported with personal care at the time of the inspection.

Risks with in the service were recorded, monitored and reviewed. The provider had a safeguarding policy in place and any issues had been dealt with appropriately.

Sufficient staff were employed to support people’s personal care needs. Staff told us they worked as a team and supported one another. Appropriate recruitment systems continued to be operated.

Medicines in the service continued to be managed and monitored appropriately. Staff had received training on the safe handling of medicines. The person was supported to maintain their properties in a clean and tidy manner.

The individual's needs were assessed and care delivered in line with these needs. Staff had undertaken a range of training and had sufficient skills and experience to support people with individual care. The person told us staff supported them to have a healthy diet.

The service was working within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The individual was 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 the service supported this practice The service was aware family members had an active lasting power of attorney. The service was working with the housing association to ensure the home environment best supported people’s needs.

The person told us they were happy with the staff and the support they received. Staff were committed to ensuring people they supported received good quality and personal support. They had good knowledge about the individual's backgrounds and care needs. The person told us they were supported to make day to day decisions about their care. Questionnaires completed by people who used the service were extremely positive about the support they received.

The person's privacy and dignity were respected. Staff spoke knowledgably about how they promoted and encouraged people’s independence.

Care records contained information that supported staff to deliver person centred care that met the individual’s needs. Care was reviewed and the individual was involved in reviewing their care needs. As far as practical they were supported to access a range of events and activities, both within the service and outside. There had been no recent formal complaints about the service.

The person and staff spoke highly of the registered manager who they felt had the needs of people who used the service as her constant focus. Staff said the registered manager was approachable and offered good support and knowledge.

Staff questionnaire responses were extremely positive and they told us there was a strong and stable staff team at the service.

Regular audits and checks were in place to monitor the quality of the service. The service worked in partnership with a number of outside and local agencies. The service was meeting legal requirements by displaying the current quality rating and submitting not

The service comprised of a row of eleven houses, ten of which had four bedrooms and the other, two. The houses were owned by a Housing Association which was not connected to the provider and a tenancy agreement was in place for people who lived there. Keele Drive provided staff to support people who lived in these houses.

We spoke with three people to find out their opinion of the service. In addition, we spoke with a team manager from the local authority care management team.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

People informed us that they were happy living at Keele Drive. They explained that they visited the GP and had received their annual health check. Two people informed us they accessed the GP independently. We found that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

People using the service told us that they were happy with the support they received.

The inspection took place on 14, 16 and 22 July 2015 and was announced. We announced the inspection to make sure that staff would be available at the office to assist us with the inspection. We contacted relatives following our inspection between 31 July and 3 August 2015.

Azure Charitable Enterprises provides support and a wide range of services to people with learning disabilities. They also work with people with a history of mental health issues, physical disabilities, those within the autistic spectrum and people who have an acquired head injury. The provider has four regulated services which are registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); Hexham, Keele Drive, Newcastle and Azure Charitable Enterprises Washington.

We inspected Hexham, Keele Drive and Newcastle services between 14 and 22 July 2015. This report only relates to our findings at the Keele Drive inspection. Hexham and Newcastle reports can be found on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Azure Charitable Enterprises also have a number of supported businesses that provide employment and training opportunities for people with a disability. These include a garden centre and nurseries, a printing service, a landscaping business and a community enabling support service. These services are not regulated by the Care Quality Commission because they are out of scope of the regulations.

Keele Drive in Cramlington provides personal care to people who have a learning disability. The service comprises of a row of eleven houses, ten of which had four bedrooms and the other, two.

The houses were owned by a Housing Association which was not connected to the provider and a tenancy agreement was in place for people who lived there. Keele Drive provides staff to support people who lived in these houses. There were 39 people using the regulated “support service” at the time of the inspection. Not all people needed support with personal care.

The service was last inspected on 5 November 2013. We found they were meeting all the regulations we inspected.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place. There was one ongoing safeguarding issue which was not connected to the care and support which staff provided. Staff knew what action to take if abuse was suspected.

People, staff and relatives told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. We observed staff provided support in a calm unhurried manner. There was a training programme in place. Staff were trained in safe working practices and to meet the specific needs of people who used the service. Many of the staff had worked at Keele Drive for a considerable number of years. This experience contributed to the skill which they carried out their duties.

There were systems in place for the safe management of medicines. Three staff checked the receipt of all medicines and two staff administered medicines.

People told us that they were happy with the service provided. We saw that people’s nutritional needs were met. People told us and our own observations confirmed that they were involved in the planning and preparation of meals.

The registered manager was aware of the Supreme Court judgement in relation to deprivation of liberty. The Supreme Court ruled that anyone who was subject to continuous supervision and not free to leave was deprived of their liberty. The registered manager told us that there was no one using the service that met the criteria mentioned above.

People and the relatives told us that staff were caring. People were supported to maintain their hobbies and interests and housekeeping skills were encouraged to help promote people’s independence.

People, relatives and staff told us that they were involved in making decisions about the running of the service. They explained that there was open communication and their views were listened to and acted upon. There was a complaints procedure in place.

There had been a number of external changes which had impacted upon the service. There had been a recent change in funding which had resulted in several staff redundancies. In addition, the housing provider which was not connected with Azure Charitable services had introduced a new concierge service which operated on a 24/7 basis. Concierge staff dealt with any tenancy related issues. Concierge staff now carried out some of the duties which Azure staff used to undertake such as house meetings and health and safety checks.

Staff informed us that they “loved” working for the provider and recognised that the changes and redundancies were not due to the provider but caused by changes in funding. They said that they still felt valued by the provider and were in the process of assessing the impact which the recent changes had on the service and people.

We reviewed a number of internal audits and monitoring reports which demonstrated that the provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service they delivered.