Our inspection took place on 15 February 2016.

At the time of our inspection 11 people received support and personal care from the provider. People who used the service had needs associated with a learning disability or an associated condition.

Services delivered were personal care to people who lived in their own flats within the community or supported living premises. Supported living enables people who need personal or social support to live in their own home supported by care staff instead of living in a care home or with family.

At our last inspection of January 2014 the provider was meeting the regulations that we assessed.

The manager was registered with us as is required by law. 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 provider had not taken action to make sure that medicines were stored at the correct temperature to prevent any possibility of them being spoilt or not working as they were supposed to. Medicines were not always date labelled when first opened so there was a possibility they would be continued to be used after the expiry date had past.

Relatives told us that they were not aware of any incidents of abuse. There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and staff followed these. Staff knew how to report any concerns that they may have and the registered manager reported incidents to the local authority safeguarding team as they were required to.

Recruitment processes were robust and reduced the risk of unsuitable staff being appointed.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the care and support they needed. People were supported by staff who were kind, caring, respectful and knew them well.

People and their relatives had been involved in the planning of care to ensure that people received the care and support in line with their needs and preferences.

Staff told us that they enjoyed their work and felt adequately supported on a day to day basis in their job roles. People were cared for by staff who were trained so that they could carry out their role effectively.

People who used the service described the staff as being nice and kind. Staff showed an interest in people and showed them respect.

Staff were aware of how to support people’s rights and seek their consent before providing care and ensured people were supported to make day to day choices.

Staff had an understanding and knowledge regarding the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS). This ensured that people who used the service were not unlawfully restricted.

We found that a complaints procedure was available for people to use and relatives told us that they would access them if they had a need to.

Management systems and the quality monitoring of the service gave some assurance of a well-led service. Relatives had confidence in the managers and told us that improvements had been made of late.

We gave short notice of our inspection so that we were able to make a judgement about the service provided. At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care and support to 42 people. To determine the standard of care provided and the satisfaction of people using the service we spoke with four people who used the service, six relatives of people who used the service, seven staff, the manager and deputy manager.

All the people we spoke with were complimentary about the support offered by the service. One person told us, “I am happy with everything. They are nice staff.” Another person told us, “I am happy with them, I am going out today.” A relative told us, “Absolutely excellent service, cannot fault them at all.”

People told us their privacy and dignity was promoted and maintained. They told us that they were able to make choices about their daily lives.

People's care and health needs were planned and met in a personalised way. There were systems in place to identify and manage risks to keep people safe. All staff spoken with told us they had the information they needed to care for people safely.

Staff spoken with told us they felt supported by the management team and had regular training opportunities. This meant staff had the skills to care for people safely.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and for improvements to be made.

This inspection was unannounced so no one knew we would be going there. To determine the standard of care provided and the satisfaction of people using the service we spoke with three relatives, four staff, the manager and three people who used the service. People we spoke with told us positive things about the overall service provided. One person told us "I am very happy and have a good service". Another person said "I am very happy with my care and staff". A relative told us "I have always been satisfied with the service they get. All staff are good but some are outstanding".

People told us that choices were offered and their views had been taken into consideration. They also told us that their privacy and dignity was promoted and maintained.

People's needs had been assessed by a range of health professionals including specialist doctors and the optician. This meant that staff had enabled people to have their health care needs monitored and met.

Staff were able to give a good account of what they would do if they were concerned about anything or witnessed abuse.

Recruitment processes ensured that staff members were suitable to work with the people using this service which protected them from harm.

We found that systems had been used to monitor how the service had been run and people had been encouraged to raise concerns.