The inspection took place on 27 April 2017 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection on 27 February 2015, the service was meeting all legal requirements and was rated 'Good'.

Mawney Road is a care home for six people with a learning disability. There were six people living at the service at the time of our visit. The premises were spacious and provided accommodation on the ground and first floors.

There was 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.

Staff ensured that people were happy, comfortable and well presented in the service. People's relatives told us that they were satisfied with the support staff provided to make sure people were safe and their needs met. There were always enough staff on shift to support people. The staff recruitment processes were robust and staff were checked before they started work at the service.

Staff communicated well with each other and felt supported by the registered manager. Staff supervision and appraisal sessions enabled staff to review their practices and knowledge and to identify further training opportunities. The training staff received at the service were varied and relevant to the needs of the people who used the service. This ensured, among others, that staff knew adult safeguarding procedures and how to manage medicines safely.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how it applied in practice. They could explain the procedures in place to ensure decisions were made in people's best interests.

People were encouraged and supported to live as independently as possible. The policies and systems in the service allowed people to be supported in the least restrictive way. People's care plans were developed based on their assessment of needs. The risk assessments were regularly reviewed to identify and reduce the possibility of an incident or accident happening to people.

Staff supported people to maintain a healthy lifestyle. People could choose the food they wanted and relatives confirmed that the food was good. People also benefitted from regular medical checks.

There was an open and transparent culture where people, relatives and staff could feel free to share their views and be confident that their concerns or comments could be taken seriously by the registered manager. The auditing and quality assurance systems were used as a tool for continuous improvement of the service. We made one recommendation regarding reviews of risk assessments.

We interacted with people who used the service and spoke with people’s relatives. We were told that Mawney Road had retained many of its staff for a long time which, we were told, meant that staff had built up good relationships with people. We were told “they really help my sister, they are very good”.

We observed staff interacting with people who lived at the service in a respectful way that met their needs. For instance, one member of staff worked with one person’s challenging behaviour in a calm and caring way which put the person at ease. Another member of staff supported someone to put on a top to go out in a calm and patient way.

We found that staff received appropriate professional development and training. The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to act where it found this was needed. There were arrangements in place for people to make comments and complaints about the service.

People at Mawney Road communicated with us non verbally. As a result we sought out the views of people’s relatives who told us that they felt Mawney Road was a good place to be. They told us that their loved ones were well-cared for and were treated with dignity and respect. One person told us “staff are really good. They make you feel comfortable. My sister’s very happy there.” Another person told us “staff deal with her challenging behaviour in a way that respects her dignity. Other places didn’t deal with her nearly as well.”

We found that people’s care was being delivered in line with assessed need, that appropriate pre employment checks were taking place before staff were employed and that any records kept were fit for purpose and kept securely. We also found that the decoration, fixtures and fittings were old, worn and in need of renewal. The provider had recently carried out an assessment of this and was planning to address this.

Due to their degree of learning and communication difficulties people who use the services were unable to provide us with direct feedback. However, we made observations during our visit and found people to appear happy and relaxed in the company of staff. Feedback in a recent questionnaire from one of their relatives stated, "service users individual needs are very much in the forefront of the service provided" another said, "the staff take him out to all kinds of things and he loves all the activities he does (also his food) he also goes for walks, which he likes."

Staff told us there had previously been some management issues and they had alerted senior management to their concerns. As a result of this the provider was taking action to rectify any issues. We were told by staff that this was a nice place to work now.

This unannounced inspection took place on 27 February 2015. The service met all of the regulations we inspected against at our last inspection on 11 July 2013.

Mawney Road is a home for six people with a learning disability. One of the people living at the home during our visit was using respite care but the other five people had lived at the home for many years. The service premises were spacious and provided accommodation on the ground and first floors.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We found that the needs of people who used the respite service were not assessed in full and they did not have appropriate care plans in place to ensure their safety and well-being while living at the home. However, we noted that the needs of people who lived permanently at the home were fully assessed and there was evidence to confirm that people and their families were involved. People’s care plans were personalised and reflected each person’s needs.

Staff had good knowledge and experience to support people in a safe environment. We observed staff were friendly and kind when interacting with people. For example, we saw staff giving people choices of what to eat and drink and where to sit, and allowing them to take time to decide. People were relaxed when staff were present and there was a friendly atmosphere in the home. Staff were aware of the service’s policies and procedures, and were appropriately vetted before starting work.

People received their medicines in a safe manner. Medicines were safely stored and administered, signed for by staff and checked weekly by the registered manager. This ensured that any errors in the handling and administration of medicines were spotted and dealt with by the registered manager.

People had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support. For example, people had healthcare checks and attended appointments with opticians and dentists. Referrals were also made to other healthcare professionals when and as needed.

The service had not received a complaint during the past 12 months. Relatives knew how to make a complaint and there were opportunities for them to raise any concerns they had. Relatives spoke positively about the service. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service people received. The feedback received from relatives, social and healthcare professionals during the last quality assurance review was positive about the service.