Leighside 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.

Leighside provide accommodation and personal care and support for up to five adults who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. The accommodation is spread over two floors. All five bedrooms have en-suite bathrooms. There were four people living in the home at the time of our inspection.

At our last inspection in January 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The atmosphere throughout the home was friendly, calm and caring. The staff spoke about people in a respectful manner and demonstrated understanding of their individual needs.

Since the last inspection the provider and registered manager had reviewed the company policies and procedures to make sure staff had up to date guidance to follow.

Staff understood how to identify, report and manage any concerns related to people’s safety and welfare. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm, including how medicines were managed.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment practices were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken, which made sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people in the home.

Staff were supported to provide appropriate care to people because they were trained, supervised and appraised. There was an induction, training and development programme, which supported staff to gain relevant knowledge and skills.

People were supported to have 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.

People received regular and on-going health checks and support to attend appointments. They were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and to make informed choices about what they ate.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and staff were prompt to raise issues about people’s health so that people were referred to health professionals when needed. There were systems in place to help ensure any concerns or complaints were responded to appropriately.

People were supported to do the things that interested them, maintain relationships and to participate in community activities.

The provider and registered manager demonstrated an open management style and provided leadership to the staff team. There were a range of systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service and to ensure people were receiving appropriate support.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on Tuesday 26 January 2016 and was unannounced. The last inspection of this service was carried April 2013. The service met all the regulations inspected against at that time.

Leighside is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people with a learning disabilities and autism. The accommodation was spread over two floors. All five bedrooms had en-suite bathrooms. At the time of our inspection five people lived at the service.

Leighside had a registered manager. 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 registered manager had recently been registered with CQC.

The provider had a range of policies and procedures in place that gave guidance to staff about how to carry out their role safely. However these had not been reviewed or updated for several years. Several documents referred to the previous inspectorate of social care which had ceased operating in 2009 and had out of date contact numbers and addresses including out of date telephone numbers for the Hampshire Safeguarding Team. Therefore staff may not acting on or following the correct guidance from the provider.

Staff had a clear understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. They were confident that any concerns would be listened to and investigated. Staff told us how safeguarding alerts were managed in the service. Staff were able to give examples of different types and definitions of abuse and how to recognise changes in people’s behaviour.

The manager and staff sought people’s consent and supported people to make decisions that were in their best interests. People told us they were able to make choices about their support. People told us staff treated them with kindness and understanding and we observed positive, caring relationships between people and the staff. Staff supported people to maintain their independence.

We looked at staffing rotas both current and historical. There were enough staff employed to ensure people were supported both in the service and when out in the community. When events were planned that required extra staffing, staff were added to the rotas as required.

Recruitment practices at the service were robust, appropriate and safe. So only people suited to the role were employed by the service. Staff told us, the team in the service was stable with some members being long term employees. Staff training was up to date and staff received frequent supervision and appraisal.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way. Records were up to date with no gaps or inaccuracies found. A staff signing sheet was available so records could be audited. Staff were trained in safe handling of medicines and received regular medicine competency checks.

The provider had effective management systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided to people.

We have made a recommendation that the service updates all its policies and procedures.

This service was non compliant on our last inspection in November 2012 and we looked at progress made with an action plan produced by the provider. We found all areas within the action plan were in place. The service had responded to concerns around consent to care and keeping people safe by putting training and improved policies and procedures in place. They monitored the quality of the service they provided and had recently sent a quality survey to relatives and professionals to obtain their views.

We spoke with two people who used the service, one member of staff, the manager and the provider. We also carried out a review of required paperwork. We asked two other people if they would like to speak with us but they chose not to. One person told us "I like to choose what I do and the staff help me to do it." Another person told us "I will talk to my key worker about where I want to go." They both told us they liked living at Leighside and the people they lived with.

One member of staff said "I enjoy working with my key person and seeing the progress they have made." Staff told us they received good training and felt supported by senior staff. We saw staff supporting people to develop their independence skills and helping them to plan their activities safely. The service checked suitability of staff in their recruitment process.

The provider had introduced regular quality monitoring checks to the service. We saw comments had been listened to and changes made.

We were able to speak with two people who used the service who told us they received help from staff. They were aware of their care plans and were supported to do the things they liked doing independently or with staff support. Visual aids were used for some people to help them make decisions and understand records. However we found that where some decisions were made for people, such as with finances, mental capacity assessments had not been completed first to assess their ability to make the decisions. We found there were regular house meetings in which people were able to influence the service such as about food and activities. People were also consulted about their care in regular meetings with their key workers.

We saw friendly and supportive interactions with staff who showed knowledge of people’s needs. Medication was well organised. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people and raise concerns if they had any. We found however that although the service had taken action local agencies had not been informed about a recent allegation and were not involved in the investigation. Staff rosters varied to provide sufficient staff to support people. A system of staff training was in place. Staff had opportunities to informally discuss their work. However, individual supervision meetings had not regularly taken place. System in place to monitor the safety and the quality of the service was not comprehensive.

A resident told us that they went out on their own and that the level of support they had from staff was right for them.

Residents told us they liked living at the home and felt safe.

We spoke with one resident about their care plan and they were aware that it was there and said they could guess what was in it. The resident felt they were supported in a way which met their needs.