This comprehensive inspection took place on 17 and 19 July 2018. The first day was unannounced.

Magna Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Magna Road accommodates up to seven adults with a learning disability in one building. The ground floor is wheelchair accessible. There were six people living there when we inspected.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service 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 service had a positive, person-centred, open and inclusive culture, with good relationships amongst people and staff.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People’s privacy was respected, and their independence promoted.

People were protected from abuse and neglect. They felt safe living at Magna Road. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding adults.

People’s care and support was delivered in a way that met their diverse needs and promoted equality.

Staff worked hard to establish people’s preferences and went the extra mile to help them find more hobbies and interests. Arrangements for activities were varied and adapted according to people’s individual needs. People had over the past year had become busier and more content.

Staff had gone the extra mile to minimise the adverse impacts of severe weather on people earlier in the year. This included staying over, assisting colleagues to get to work and arranging imaginative in-house activities.

People and where appropriate their families were involved in developing their care and support plans. This had resulted in people having successful planned transitions to the service from their previous accommodation.

Social contact and companionship was encouraged, which helped to protect people from social isolation. Staff supported people to keep in touch with their families and friends, and to maintain community links. People regularly visited community facilities.

People were supported to live healthier lives as they chose and got the support they needed to manage their health. Staff ensured there were healthy food options and encouraged people to keep active and to maintain friendships and interests.

Staff were aware of the importance of respecting people’s choices. They constantly consulted people and supported them to make choices. They worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where appropriate, applications had been made to the relevant authorising body to deprive people of their liberty.

People were involved in decisions about how to manage risks they faced. Their risk assessments were person-centred, proportionate and reviewed regularly.

There were elements of outstanding practice in relation to managing behaviour that challenged. People who had a history of behaviour that challenged had a personalised positive behaviour support plan. This supported them to have as much control as possible over their lives, so they did not feel the need to behave in a challenging way. Staff noticed when people were showing signs of being upset and swiftly provided care and support.

There were elements of outstanding practice in relation to meeting people’s individual needs through the a

Magna Road is a care home for up to seven people with learning disabilities in Poole. There were four people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

At the last inspection in November 2015 the overall rating for Magna Road was Good.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 5 April 2017 to follow up on the actions taken to address the breach of regulation in relation to the premises. This was because at the last inspection the carpet in the lounge was stained, had an iron burn mark in it and smelt unpleasant. The walls were damaged and needed to be repaired.

At this inspection the maintenance and cleanliness of the service had improved. The carpets and sofas had been replaced and the walls had been repaired.

There were systems in place to safeguard people from abuse.

Medicines were managed safely and stored securely. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed to minimise risks.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

There were robust systems in place for the maintenance of the building and equipment.

At this inspection we changed the rating for the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ from Requires Improvement to Good. The overall rating for the service remained Good.

This inspection was unannounced on 30 November 2015. We started an unannounced inspection at the service on 22 September 2015 shortly after the registered manager left the service. We found that the provider’s quality and finance teams were completing an assessment of the service. We stopped the inspection because of the negative impact on the people from having additional persons in the service.

We last inspected Magna Road in April 2014 and the service met the regulations.

Magna Road is a care home for up to seven people with learning disabilities in Poole. There were four people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

The service does not have a registered manager. A new service manager had been appointed in November 2015 and the provider told us they would be applying to be registered. 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.

At this inspection we found some areas of the home were not properly maintained. The lounge carpet was stained, had a burn mark on it and smelt unpleasant. Repairs to walls were not robust and they had become damaged further. This was a breach of the regulations.

Some of the people had complex needs and were not able to tell us their experiences. We saw that those people and the people we spoke with were smiling, happy and relaxed in the home.

Medicines were managed safely and stored securely. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP.

People received care and support in a personalised way. Staff knew people well and understood their needs and the way they communicated. We found that people received the health, personal and social care support they needed.

People were relaxed with staff which may have indicated they were comfortable and felt safe with them. Staff knew how to recognise any signs of abuse and how they could report any allegations. Learning from any safeguarding investigations was shared with staff and actions taken to minimise any further incidents.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed to minimise risks. People were supported to take part and try new activities and experiences in the house and in the community.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People and staff had good relationships. People had access to the local community and had individual activities provided.

Staff received an induction, core training and some specialist training so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely. Agency staff that knew people well were used to cover some staff absences and provide consistency in people’s care.

The culture within the service was personalised and open. There was a clear management structure being implemented and relatives and staff felt comfortable talking to the regional manager and seniors about any issues. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided. There were plans in place to meet any areas for improvement identified.

Magna Road is a care home for up to seven people with learning disabilities. Three people were living at the home when we inspected.

We observed people and saw they were happy living at the home. This was supported by what relatives told us. Staff knew people’s individual needs and how to meet them. We saw that there were good relationships between people living at the home and staff.

People’s representatives were involved in developing care plans, and we saw people made simple decisions about their care and support. We observed and relatives told us, that staff encouraged and promoted people’s independence.

We found that staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People had access to the local community and had individual activities provided.

Staff received an induction, core training and some specialist training so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff had not yet received training in the Mental Capacity Act and arrangements were in place for this to be provided.

The culture within the home was personalised and open. There was a clear management structure in the home and staff, representatives and people felt comfortable talking to the managers about their concerns and ideas for improvements. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.

We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager was reviewing whether any applications needed to be made in response to the supreme court judgement in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s human rights were recognised, respected and promoted.

At our inspection in December 2013 we found there had been a breach of regulation 22. This was because there had not been enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of all the people who had been admitted into the home. At this inspection we found there were enough qualified and skilled staff at the home to meet people’s needs.

This inspection was to follow up on the warning notice issued in December 2013 because care and treatment was not assessed, planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

At this inspection there were two people living at Magna Road. We spoke with the regional manager, the manager and two staff. We observed staff supporting one person who had complex needs and ways of communicating.

We found care and treatment was assessed, planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. This was because full assessments and care plans had been completed and this meant that staff had the information to be able to provide the care and support people needed.

This inspection was in response to a number of concerns received since the home was registered on 7 November 2013.

There were two people living at the home at the time of the inspection. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. This included looking at records kept about people. This was because they had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us about themselves.

We spoke with three staff, the regional manager and acting manager. The registered manager was not present at the inspection.

Care and treatment was not assessed, planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. This was because assessments and care plans had not been fully completed and this meant that staff did not have the information to be able to provide the care and support people needed.

We found that people were admitted into the home before it was registered.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. However, there had not been sufficient qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of the all the people who had been initially admitted into the home.