We undertook an unannounced inspection on 25 April 2017. M.C.A Care Homes provides care and support for a maximum of three people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were two people living at the home.

At the last inspection, the service was rated as Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained as Good.

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 legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the associated regulations on how the service is run.

Risks had been identified and assessed that provided information on how to mitigate risks to keep people safe.

Medicines were being managed safely. Medicines audits and staff competencies had not taken place. The registered manager informed this will be introduced and sent us evidence after the inspection which confirmed that audits would be carried out regularly.

Staff received regular supervision and support to carry out their roles. Mandatory training had been provided to staff in safeguarding, infection control and first aid. Specific training had not been provided to staff to support people with learning disabilities and autism. After the inspection the registered manager sent evidence confirming that training had been booked in these areas.

Staff sought people's consent to the care and support they provided. People's rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Deprivation of Liberty safeguarding applications had been made for people that, due to their own safety, required supervision when going outside.

There was a menu for meal times, which was different every day. Staff and relatives we spoke to told us that people enjoyed the meals.

People were able to access healthcare services and attend routine medical appointments and health monitoring with staff support.

Staff had positive, caring relationships with the people who lived at the home.

People were treated in a respectful and dignified manner by staff who understood the need to protect people's human rights.

Activities were being carried out with people.

People were receiving person centred care. Care plans were personalised and person centred.

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager.

Spot checks were being carried out to observe staff performance. Surveys were carried out to obtain feedback, which was analysed for continuous improvements.

We were not able to get the direct opinions of people who use the service, however we spent time observing the care and support provided to people. We saw that staff knew how to communicate with people and understood their needs. We noticed that the way that staff interacted with people had a positive effect on their well-being. We also spoke with a relative who told us, “it’s a brilliant service. I’d recommend them.” We found that care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare and meet their individual needs.

We checked all areas of the premises and found no concerns in terms of its safety and suitability. The environment was well maintained, clean, and felt homely. People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. We found that staff knew people’s individual nutritional needs and we saw that these were addressed.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. “If there’s any issues, they contact me, and if I’ve any concerns they sort it out,” a relative said. The manager told us he kept in regular contact with people’s relatives. We were told and shown examples of how comments made about aspects of the service had results in alterations to how the service was provided to individuals.

We were not able to get the direct opinions of people who use the service, however we spent time observing the care and support provided to people. We observed that people were involved and consulted about decisions affecting their care. Staff knew how to communicate with people and understood their needs. Staff spoke with people in an appropriate manner, and respected their decisions. Staff knew how to support people to meet their needs.

We also spoke with a relative of someone who uses the service, who told us, “It’s a brilliant service.”

Due to communication difficulties of the people who were using this service during our visit, we interpreted their experiences of the service though our observations. We also spoke to some representatives of people who use services after our visit.

People told us that the service meets the needs of those that use it. Comments included, “I was very impressed when he came back and was clean and happy.”

People spoke positively about the staff at the service, telling us for instance that, “Staff asked the right questions and staff treated him well.”

People told us that the service keeps them informed. Representatives were contacted for advice on how to meet people’s needs, which was appreciated.

People told us that there is enough to do at the service. Comments included that the person using services “was not bored there.” We watched services being provided and saw people using it were comfortable there, with some people smiling and laughing a lot in their interactions with staff. Staff were respectful, attentive and friendly to people, and encouraged independence and skills development.

In summary, people were generally satisfied with the standard of care and support provided by the service. As one person put it, “It’s all perfect.”

.

We undertook this unannounced inspection on 14 and 15 April 2015 of M.C.A. Care Homes to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. M.C.A. Care Homes provides care and accommodation for a maximum of three people. People living in the home have a learning disability and some of them stay only for short periods of respite care. At this inspection there were three people living in the home. The provider met all the standards we inspected against at our last inspection on 30 May 2014.

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 of the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

On both days of the inspection staff were welcoming and people in the home appeared settled and well cared for. People living in the home had learning disabilities and we were unable to obtain specific feedback from them. However, the feedback received from them via nods and gestures indicated that they were satisfied with the care provided.

Three social care professionals who provided us with feedback indicated that their clients were well cared for and they were happy with the management of the home.

The staffing levels were adequate. We saw staff going about their duties in a calm and orderly manner. They were friendly and interacted well with people. Staff were able to get the co-operation of people and people responded well to staff.

People had been carefully assessed and care plans were prepared with the involvement of people and their representatives. Their physical and mental health needs were closely monitored. There were reviews of people’s health and a record of appointments with health and social care professionals. There were suitable arrangements for the recording of medicines received, storage, administration and disposal of medicines in the home.

Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with training to enable them to care effectively for people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people with learning difficulties.

The home had a safeguarding adults and whistleblowing policy. Staff had received training and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.

Staff had assessed people’s preferences prior to their admission and arrangements were in place to ensure that these were responded to. People could participate in activities they liked and go on outings. There were suitable arrangements for the provision of food to ensure that people’s dietary needs were met.

The home had arrangements for quality assurance. This included giving frequent updates to relatives of people and receiving feedback from them. Regular audits and checks had been carried out by the registered manager and the nominated individual. Professionals who provided us with feedback stated that they were satisfied with the quality of care provided and there were no concerns regarding communication.

We found the premises were clean and tidy. The home had an Infection control policy and measures were in place for infection control. There was a record of essential inspections and maintenance carried out.