Maple House provides care and accommodation for up to three people with a learning disability or on the autistic spectrum. At the time of our inspection, three people were using the service.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 8 May 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People remained safe at the service. People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff knew how to identify abuse and understood their responsibility to report concerns. Risks were identified and plans put in place detailing guidance for staff about how to minimise the risks to people.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to provide people’s care in a safe manner. Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place and followed to ensure the suitability of new staff to care for people.

People were supported to take their medicines safely by staff who were assessed as competent to do so. Medicines were securely stored and managed safely at the service in line with the provider’s procedures.

The premises were safe and the environment clean. Staff understood the provider’s infection control procedures and followed good hygiene practices.

People continued to receive effective care because staff were trained and equipped for their role. Staff were supported in their role and received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to improve their practice. Staff understood people’s communication needs which enabled them to support them in line with their wishes and preferences.

People’s nutritional and dietary needs were consistently met. Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People had access to healthcare services to maintain their well-being. People were supported to take part in a range of activities offered at the service and to access the community. Staff encouraged people to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff remained kind and compassionate when providing people’s care. People were consistently treated with respect and their dignity and privacy sustained.

The care provided continued to be responsive to people’s needs. People’s needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. Support plans were updated and contained sufficient detail about how staff were to provide appropriate care. Staff provided individualised care in line with people’s identified needs and preferences.

The registered manager was visible at the service and supportive to people and staff. People, their relatives and staff were happy in the manner the service was managed. People and their relative’s views about the service were sought and their feedback was used to make improvements.

People knew how to make a complaint about any aspect of their care. The quality of care was subject to regular checks to improve people’s experiences of the service. People benefitted from the close partnership of the service with other healthcare organisations.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 8 May 2015 and was unannounced. When we last visited the home on 28 January 2014 we found the service met all the regulations we looked at.

Maple House provides accommodation, care and support for up to three people with a learning disability or on the autistic spectrum. There were three people using the service on the day of our inspection.

The home 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.

Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were available and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Staff understood what to do if people could not make decisions about their care needs as assessments of people’s capacity had been carried out. Staff had received training on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. These safeguards are there to make sure that people receiving support are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. Services should only deprive someone of their liberty when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them, and it should be done in a safe and correct way.

People received individualised support that met their needs. The provider had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from risks associated with their support, and care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences.

People were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs would be met. People were supported to eat and drink according to their individual preferences. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely.

People told us they were happy with the care provided. Staff were appropriately trained and skilled to care for people. They understood their roles and responsibilities as well as the values of the home. Staff received supervision and an annual performance review. They confirmed they were supported by the registered manager and received advice where required.

The registered manager was accessible and approachable. People who used the service and staff felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback on the service. People’s complaints had been responded to and action taken to resolve them.

Monthly audits were carried out across various aspects of the service, these included the administration of medication, care planning and training and development. Where these audits identified that improvements were needed action had been taken to improve the service for people.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The registered manager told us that the provider had several forms which required people who used the service to provide consent.

We spoke with the relatives of two people who used the service. One person told us "The staff are ok, but the problem is there are quite a lot of changes with staff which make it difficult for my relative. Staff keep changing so you meet different staff when you visit."

Records showed that people who used the service were also supported by other healthcare professionals. These included GPs, opticians, dentists, consultant psychiatrists and social workers.

There was a system in place for ensuring that the environment was maintained. We were told that if repairs were needed they were recorded on the monthly audit form by the team leader and then this information was sent to the provider's audit team who would arrange the repairs.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work, including completion of an application form and attendance to an interview.

The provider had a complaints policy in place which stated that all complaints would be acknowledged within 48 hours and resolved within twenty eight days. People's complaints were dealt with in accordance with the policy.

During our inspection we spoke with three people who use the service and three staff.

People who used this service told us that they were treated well. We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly, dignified and respectful manner. We looked at care plans and saw that people where given choice in all areas of daily living.

Care plans showed us that people had good access to associated health professionals. People told us that they were very happy with the care provided at this home.

We looked at menus and spoke with people about the food provided at the home. They told us that the food was nutritional and that choice was being offered.

People told us that they felt safe and that if anything ever happened they would be happy to speak to the manager.

The premises and environment was safe and regularly maintained.

Staff felt supported and received training to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff that we spoke with stated that they were happy with their vocational training options.

The provider had comprehensive policies and procedures that ensured an effective quality service was provided. Safety records were up to date and the provider had completed regular checks on all equipment ensuring a safe environment.

People were treated well by staff and staff understood their needs.

People were treated respectfully and spoken to in an appropriate manner.

We observed a member of staff when a person became anxious, the interaction was compassionate and the staff member offered reassurance.

We observed that people were able to talk with staff and staff interacted with people appropriately.

People told us they were involved in menu planning. This happened at a weekly meeting. The menus seen indicated a lot of processed foods on the menu with no alternative meals recorded to support food choices being made and unusual combinations of food.

People said their rooms are always kept clean and said they were happy living in the home.