Levina House is a residential care home for 6 people with learning disabilities. It is in a central city location with good access to local shops and leisure facilities.

At our last inspection 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 ongoing 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.

.

People continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to support them and they were recruited to ensure that they were safe to work with people. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely. Lessons were learnt from when mistakes happened.

The care that people received continued to be effective. They 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 the service supported this practice. Staff received training and support to be able to care for people well. They ensured that people were supported to maintain good health and nutrition; including partnerships with other organisations when needed. The environment was adapted to meet people’s needs.

People continued to have positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect and kindness. There were lots of opportunities for them to get involved in activities and pursue their interests. Staff knew them well and understood how to care for them in a personalised way. There were plans in place which detailed people’s likes and dislikes and these were regularly reviewed. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had a complaints procedure although to date they had not received any.

The registered manager was approachable and there were meetings in place which encouraged people to give their feedback. There were quality systems in place which were effective in continually developing the quality of the care that was provided to them.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We inspected the service on 20 October 2015. The inspection was unannounced. Levina House offers accommodation for to up to 6 people who have a learning disability. On the day of our inspection six people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 kept safe in the service and staff knew how to protect people from harm. Staff knew how to respond to incidents and how to escalate concerns. This meant there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staffing levels were matched to the needs of people who used the service to ensure they received care and support when they needed it.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support.

People were supported to make decisions and where there was a lack of capacity to make certain decisions; people were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff were monitoring and responding to people’s health conditions. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and people were supported with their independence.

People were involved in planning their care and support. They were supported to have a social life and to go out into the community and go on holidays.

Although people were involved in giving their views on how the service was run, their views and requests were not always listened to or acted upon. The systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided was not fully effective.

We considered all of the information we hold about this service before we did this inspection and this did not raise any concerns. We had not received any information of concern from stakeholders in relation to this service.

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. One person told us, “I have lots of opportunity to do what I want.”

We saw people’s needs were assessed and planned for. We spoke with four people who were using the service during our visit and received positive comments about the support provided. We were told, “I love it here.” and, “The staff support me well.”

People were protected from the risk of abuse and staff had guidance and training to ensure they responded appropriately to any incident which might require a referral to safeguarding vulnerable adults teams. People we spoke with felt safe with the staff working in the home.

Appropriate checks were carried out on staff prior to them commencing work in the service to ensure they were of the right character to work with vulnerable adults.

People were given the opportunity to give their views on how the service was run. People felt they were listened to if they raised any issues.

We considered all of the information we hold before we did this inspection and this did not raise any concerns. We had not received any information of concern from stakeholders about this service.

People were encouraged to make choices for themselves. For example people were involved in planning the menu and social events. One person told us, “I like to help out. I do hoovering and help in the kitchen.”

People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at the care plans of two people who were using the service. We found the plans were person centred and gave staff information about each person’s needs.

We asked one person if they felt safe in the service and they told us they did. We also spoke with their relative and they told us they felt the person was kept safe. The person knew who they could talk to should they have any concerns.

We found that staff were supported to receive appropriate professional development. Within all of the staff files viewed we saw that staff had been given regular supervision sessions with management. There was also evidence that staff were receiving ongoing training to ensure they did their job safely.

The people we spoke with said they felt comfortable discussing any concerns they may have with staff. They told us they felt their concerns would be listened to and action taken to address them.

On the day of the inspection we were only able to speak with one service user as we were unable to effectively communicate with other service users due to their complex needs.

We asked a service user to comment on the quality of service provision at the home.

We were told “I feel perfectly safe living here, the staff treat me very well, they always promote my respect, I cannot fault it really. I can do want I want really, I can please myself on what I do throughout the day, we don’t have any specific times to get up in the mornings or when we go to bed. I enjoy living here, I also have a job at the pub which I enjoy.”