Magnolia Court is a residential care home split into two flats for two people with autistic spectrum disorders and learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there was one person living in the ground floor flat and one person living in the upstairs flat.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service did not have a registered manager in place. At the time of the inspection the manager had applied to be registered with the commission. 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 continued to be protected against harm and abuse as the service had robust systems in place to safeguard people. Records confirmed and staff demonstrated sufficient knowledge in the reporting and escalating of suspected abuse.

The service had effective recruitment systems in place to ensure suitable staff were employed in line with good practice.

People continued to receive their medicines safely. Regular medicines audits carried out by the service, ensured issues were identified and rectified in a timely manner.

Staff had an adequate understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

The service had an embedded culture that encouraged people to make decisions and choices about the care and support they received and have those decisions respected.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored regularly to maintain good health. Guidance and support from healthcare professionals was implemented into the delivery of care. People continued to have access to sufficient amounts of food and drink to meet their dietary requirements and preferences.

Staff demonstrated and delivered compassionate care and treated people with dignity and respect. Records confirmed people’s equality and diversity were celebrated and encouraged. Staff continued to receive training to effectively meet people’s needs.

People continued to receive care and support that was person centred. Care plans were comprehensive and gave staff clear guidance on how to meet people’s needs, taking into account their preferences and wishes.

The service encouraged people to access the community and enhance their independence where possible. People were supported to raise their concerns and complaints. The manager was aware of the provider’s process in responding to complaints in a timely manner for seeking a positive resolution.

Audits were carried out regularly by the service to improve the service delivery. Feedback on the provision of care was sought and action taken to address concerns raised.

We found that the provider had taken action to address areas of non compliance found at the last inspection in November 2012. People were going out more often, they were getting better support to maintain their physical health and wellbeing and new staff had been recruited to fill staff vacancies.

The mother of one of the people living at Magnolia Court told us "Things are shaping up. The staff are doing really well. They have taught my relative how to bake cakes and make desserts. They enjoy this and I was pleased to see the photographs. I have no complaints".

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. People were supported to be as involved as possible in choosing and preparing their meals and staff monitored what people ate and drank and how much they weighed. One person told us they liked their meals at Magnolia Court and a relative told us they had no concerns about the meals.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

We found that there had been an extended period of management and staff change and instability at Magnolia Court. Stakeholders told us that this had not provided the people who use the service with the required consistency of skilled support that they needed.

There was an insufficient number of suitably skilled staff available to meet people's needs at some times. We found that this had impacted on people using the service. The two people who were living at Magnolia Court needed a vehicle and a driver for them to access the community safely and regularly. Neither a vehicle or driver were available and this meant there was a lack of activities for them to do outside the service and a lack of opportunity to get out of the house on a regular basis.

Staff reported that people's care and support needs had not been reviewed often enough and this meant they were at risk of not having their needs met properly.

The people who were living at Magnolia Court were unable to tell us whether they felt safe there or not. One person was asleep and another was unable to understand and answer the question because of their communication needs. Staff told us that they knew how to recognise abuse and they did not think any abuse was happening.

The people who live at Magnolia Court were not able to tell us about their experiences or views of the home. We saw that they appeared relaxed and comfortable when we visited.

We spoke to some of the external professionals who work with people who use the service. They said that they were happy with some aspects of the service but felt that people may benefit from opportunities to do more activities. Some professionals told us that they felt the staff were not always following approved guidelines when they cared for people.

Magnolia Court is a residential care home split into two flats for two people with autistic spectrum disorders and learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there was one person living in the ground floor flat and one person living in the upstairs flat.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service did not have a registered manager in place. At the time of the inspection the manager had applied to be registered with the commission. 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 continued to be protected against harm and abuse as the service had robust systems in place to safeguard people. Records confirmed and staff demonstrated sufficient knowledge in the reporting and escalating of suspected abuse.

The service had effective recruitment systems in place to ensure suitable staff were employed in line with good practice.

People continued to receive their medicines safely. Regular medicines audits carried out by the service, ensured issues were identified and rectified in a timely manner.

Staff had an adequate understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

The service had an embedded culture that encouraged people to make decisions and choices about the care and support they received and have those decisions respected.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored regularly to maintain good health. Guidance and support from healthcare professionals was implemented into the delivery of care. People continued to have access to sufficient amounts of food and drink to meet their dietary requirements and preferences.

Staff demonstrated and delivered compassionate care and treated people with dignity and respect. Records confirmed people’s equality and diversity were celebrated and encouraged. Staff continued to receive training to effectively meet people’s needs.

People continued to receive care and support that was person centred. Care plans were comprehensive and gave staff clear guidance on how to meet people’s needs, taking into account their preferences and wishes.

The service encouraged people to access the community and enhance their independence where possible. People were supported to raise their concerns and complaints. The manager was aware of the provider’s process in responding to complaints in a timely manner for seeking a positive resolution.

Audits were carried out regularly by the service to improve the service delivery. Feedback on the provision of care was sought and action taken to address concerns raised.