This inspection took place 5 and 6 July 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of this inspection because we needed to be sure that someone would be available to support us with the inspection process.

The service was last inspected and rated on 7 April 2015 and was rated ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found that the service remained ‘Good’.

Magic House currently provides personal care to 26 people living in four supporting living accommodation settings. The service aims to support people with mental health needs and learning disabilities.

People and relatives told us that they felt safe and were happy with the support that they received from care staff. Care staff understood how to keep people safe from harm and the actions to take where abuse was suspected.

The provider had a variety of systems and processes in place to ensure people were kept safe and free from harm. This included individualised risk assessments which gave information and guidelines to staff on how to reduce or mitigate risks in order to keep people safe.

Safe recruitment processes were in place to ensure that only suitable staff safe to work with vulnerable adults were recruited.

Safe medicine management processes were in place which ensured that people received their medicines safely and according to their needs and requirements.

Care staff told us and records confirmed that care staff received the required and, where appropriate, specific training to support them in their role. Staff also received regular support through the supervision and appraisal process.

People were enabled to make their own choices and decisions in the least restrictive way possible and were offered support where required.

Most people living at the scheme, lived their life according to their own wishes. This included the choosing and preparation of meals. People decided what they wanted to eat on a daily basis and supported by care staff when required. Care staff were always available to guide people in making appropriate decision in relation to healthy eating.

Most people were able to manage their own healthcare matters and appointments. However, staff were always available if and when support was required.

We observed that senior manages and care staff had developed and established positive and caring relationships with people that were based on trust and respect. Staff knew each person’s likes, dislikes, mannerisms and behavioural traits and were seen to support people appropriately according to these.

Care plans were person centred and detailed and contained support plans and goal support plans which identified and monitored each person’s individual goal which they had identified and wished to achieve in order to support independent living where possible.

The service had received five complaints since the last inspection. Records on the detail of the complaint and how it hand been handled and responded to were available. People and relatives knew who to speak with if they had any concerns. People were actively encouraged to complete a complaints form if they had concerns to raise.

We observed that people knew the operations manager and area manager extremely well and were confident in approaching them. Staff also confirmed that they were very well supported in their roles and were able to speak to a member of the management team at any time.

A variety of quality monitoring systems were in place which allowed the service to monitor the quality of care provision and where appropriate, learn from and make the necessary improvements when issues were found therefore ensuring that the quality of care was never compromised.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 7 April 2015 and was announced. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We gave the provider notice of our inspection as we needed to make sure that someone was at the office in order for us to carry out the inspection.

This inspection was the first inspection for the service since it was registered with the CQC in 2013.

The service provides personal care for people living in two supported living schemes and people living in their own home. At the time of our inspection, Magic House HSCA was providing care to nine people with mental health needs.

There was a registered manager registered with the Care Quality Commission 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. However at the time of our inspection, the registered manager no longer worked at the service. Instead there was another manager in place at the service who was in the process of going through the process of becoming a registered manager.

On the day of the inspection, we visited the service’s main office and both supported living schemes. We saw that there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in living accommodations.

The provider had taken steps and arrangements were in place to help ensure people were protected from abuse, or the risk of abuse. During our inspection, we saw suitable arrangements were in place in relation to the recording and administration of medicines.

There were recruitment and selection procedures in place to ensure people were safe and not at risk of being looked after by people who were unsuitable.

There were enough staff available at the service and staffing levels were determined according to people’s individual needs. Staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff and they had no concerns in respect of this.

Emergency procedures were clear and staff knew what to do in the event of an emergency.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans were person-centred, detailed and specific to each person and their needs. People were consulted and their care preferences were also reflected.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to perform their roles. Care staff spoke positively about their experiences working at the service and felt well supported by their peers and the registered manager. However, whilst supervision meetings had taken place, these had not been carried out consistently and on a regular basis in accordance with the service’s policy.

People were able to make their own choices and decisions. The manager was aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff we spoke with were not fully aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and deprivation of liberties and we have made a recommendation in that respect.

Positive caring relationships had developed between people who used the service and staff and people were treated with kindness and compassion. People were being treated with respect and dignity. Staff provided prompt assistance but also encouraged and promoted people to build and retain their independent living skills.

We found the service had a clear management structure in place with a team of care staff and the manager. The service had a system in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.