The inspection took place on 10 April 2017.

Maer Lane provides accommodation and personal care for up to nine people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection, eight people were living at the home.

The service is required to have a registered manager and there was a registered manager in post when we inspected. 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 suitability of prospective staff to work with people had not always been checked by the provider. Due to miscommunication between the provider’s human resources department and the registered manager, three recently employed staff had been permitted to start work, under supervision, without the appropriate pre-employment checks.

Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and supported people to raise any concerns about they may have about their safety or wellbeing. The risks associated with people’s individual care and support needs had been assessed, recorded and plans put in place to manage these.

Key workers involved people in decisions about risks and staying safe. Staffing levels at the service enabled staff to meet people’s needs safely. Systems and procedures were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.

Staff had the knowledge and skills needed to perform their duties effectively in line with good practice. Staff received effective induction, training and supervision to support them in their job roles. People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood and promoted by staff. People had enough to eat and drink, and their individual dietary requirements were assessed with appropriate input from dietary specialists. Staff played a positive role in helping people to maintain good health and access healthcare services as required.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, and took the time to get to know them well as individuals. People’s involvement in decision-making that affected them was encouraged and facilitated. People were treated in a dignified and respectful manner, and their independence was actively promoted.

People received personalised care and support that reflected their individual needs and requirements. Care plans provided detailed guidance for staff on how to meet people’s individual needs, and included information about what was important to them. People were supported to pursue interests and spend time doing things they found enjoyable. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and complaints with the provider, and felt confident these would be acted upon.

The management team promoted an open and fair culture within the service. People’s relatives felt the management team was approachable and had confidence in their ability to deal with issues fairly. Staff understood what was expected of them, and felt supported and valued by the management team. The provider had developed quality assurance systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.

We used a number of methods to help us understand the experience of people who used the service, because not everyone living at Maer Lane were able to tell us their views. We observed how people were being supported, spoke with the manager and staff on duty and reviewed care records held for two people living at the home.

Staff spoke passionately about the people they supported. They demonstrated a clear understanding of the individual needs of the people whose care we looked at in detail. They shared examples of how they offered people choices in their daily lives and how they promoted their independence.

People were supported to maintain positive health. We saw people’s health and wellbeing was closely monitored and reviewed in people’s best interests.

Staff received a range of training to give them the skills and knowledge they needed to keep people safe and to meet their individual needs.

Systems were in place to gain people’s views and to monitor and assess the quality of the service.

We met most of the people who lived at the home, spoke with two relatives and five staff. People who were able to share their experiences told us they liked living at the home. Some people were unable to tell us about their experiences due to their complex needs. We therefore observed how staff interacted with them and how they were supported in their daily lives.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the needs of the people they supported. They shared excellent examples of how they offered people choices, respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. They knew people's preferences, communication methods, likes and dislikes well. People told us they were supported to attend health appointments to maintain their health and welfare.

Staff were able to describe abuse and knew how to respond to protect people in their care. They told us they had received training on protecting vulnerable adults and would not hesitate to report any concern to the manager.

Staff told us there were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people they supported. Some staff had worked at the home a number of years providing continuity of care and support. We saw staffing was planned in advance and that this was flexible and dependent on activities and events.

People said if they were not happy they would speak with the staff. Staff told us they were confident in raising concerns on behalf of the people they supported.

Due to the complex needs of the individuals using the service not everyone was able to verbally share their experiences of what it’s like living at 4 Maer Lane. We therefore spent time observing staff interaction and talking with staff about how they meet the needs of the people they support. Staff demonstrated a sound understanding of people’s needs and engaged with people in a positive manner. People were well presented and relaxed and happy in the company of the staff and their peers. We saw people being offered choices throughout our visit and being treated with respect.

People who were able to tell us said they enjoyed living at the home and liked the staff. They told us about the holidays they had enjoyed and the busy lifestyles they lead. They said they liked their meals and were happy with their bedrooms.

We spoke with three relatives, one professional and three staff to include the deputy manager to gain their views about the service provided. We also spoke with the manager following our visit. Feedback gained was very positive. People said the home “definitely” meets the individual needs of the people who lived at Maer Lane.

Relatives said care workers were “excellent” and “very much approachable” and “brilliant!” They told us they were kept well informed about their relatives’ care needs and were invited to attend meetings. They said they were “very satisfied” with the home and said the manager operates an open door policy. They said they had no concerns about the management of the home or the care their relative received. A professional told us they found the service “excellent” and were impressed with the service provided.

Discussions with staff clearly evidenced they were committed to their work and strived to promote positive outcomes for the people in their care. Comments included, “I wouldn’t change a single thing, not the people, the environment or the staff. I have the best job in the world. We go that extra mile for the people here and think outside the box”. “It’s fantastic here, I love my job”. “We promote people’s independence…It’s a perfect place”.

We were told about the recent achievements awarded to the home to include being finalists for the Great British Care Award, Trident Best Manager Award and a Healthy Eating Gold Award. Staff were very proud of these achievements and have also nominated a person who used the service to carry the torch for Olympics 2012.