Mencap is a small residential care home for up to eight of whom have a learning disability or mental health issues. The service provides support and social interaction to enable people to become more independent in the community. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting seven people with personal care.

Our last inspection at Mencap in Kirklees took place on 24 March 2016 when the service was rated Good overall.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People we spoke with were very positive about the support provided to them. They said they felt safe and staff were respectful and kind.

We found there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with could explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made.

Assessments identified risks to people, and management plans to reduce the risks were in place to ensure people's safety without restriction.

Staff recruitment records were robust and promoted people’s safety.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines. However, we did speak to the registered manager about the need to ensure the labelling of topical creams took place.

There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and to provide one to one support for some people.

Staff were provided with relevant training to ensure they had the skills needed to support people.

Staff were provided with supervision and appraisal for development and support. Staff told us the registered manager was very approachable. People and staff told us they felt their concerns would be listened to.

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

Staff knew people they were supporting well and had developed a positive relationship with them. In our conversations with staff they displayed compassion, consideration and respect for people who they supported.

There were a variety of methods available for the registered provider to assess and monitor the quality of the service. We found quality assurance processes were effective in ensuring compliance with regulations, identifying areas requiring improvement and acting on them

The inspection was carried out on 24 March 2016 and was unannounced. There was one adult social care inspector. The previous inspection was in June 2014 and there were no breaches in the regulations at that time. 100 Pennine Crescent is a small home that provides personal care for up to eight people with learning disabilities. On the day of the inspection there were eight people living in the home.

The home had a registered manager who was also the registered provider. 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's safety and independence were promoted well and people told us they felt safe and secure living at Pennine Crescent.

People received their medicines when they needed them and there were secure systems in place for medicines management.

Staff were well supported through regular training and supervision, and they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager worked alongside staff on a daily basis.

Recruitment of staff was in progress to cover a shortfall in staff numbers and staff worked hard to ensure there was continuity of care for people during this time, although this sometimes meant staff worked long hours.

People enjoyed the food and mealtimes were sociable occasions. People’s personal preferences and choices were supported and they were involved in food planning and preparation.

The registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and how to ensure people's rights were promoted. Six out of the eight people at the home had authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place.

There was a homely, welcoming and friendly atmosphere and staff were kind, respectful and caring. People were fully consulted, involved and included and there was strong evidence of person centred care.

There was an open and communicative culture in the home, with effective management and systems for assuring the quality of the service provision.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. Due to the complex needs of people using the service we were not always able to speak to people. To help us understand the experiences of people using the service, we observed staff providing support and we spoke with two staff and the manager about the people who used the service. This helped to answer five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service effective? Is the service well led.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

There were systems and processes, policies and procedures in place to support safe care delivery. Staff told us and we saw up to date risk management plans clearly documented in the personal support plans.

People who used the service appeared happy and comfortable in their surroundings. They appeared relaxed with the staff in their interactions with them.

There were systems in place to demonstrate the manager and staff recorded incidents, accidents, complaints and concerns. We saw examples where staff had learned from these events.

Staff we spoke with told us they had received training in administration of medicines. They were able to describe in detail the procedure they followed when administering medicines. This assured us that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines.

Recruitment procedures were thorough. We also found staff were supported and monitored in their working practice. Training, supervision and appraisal programmes were in place.

We saw food stored in the fridge that had been opened, but not dated or labelled. We asked the provider to address this practice immediately.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care plans had been assessed and reviewed and care plans were in place. There was evidence of people and their relatives being involved in assessments of their needs and care planning.

Mencap dependency ratings were in place for all people who used the service. This is a system where each person’s level of dependency is rated to assist staff to identify the level of care each person needs. Specialist dietary needs were assessed, waterlow scores were being recorded, weekly weight checks were being completed and falls assessments were in place.

Some of the care plan reviews we saw were a few weeks overdue overdue. There was evidence that some information held in the health care file had not been transferred to the personal support plan. The provider told us they would update their documentation immediately to address this omission.

Is the service caring?

Our observations of the service showed care staff spoke with and interacted with people in a patient and pleasant manner. Care staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure people understood what was going to happen.

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey, and staff acted on concerns raised.

Our observations of the service showed people were involved in a wide range of community-based activities tailored to meet their individual needs. We saw evidence people and their relatives were being listened to and their views and choices were taken into account.

One person told us: “staff are good here.”

Is the service responsive?

Complaints procedures were found in each person’s care file. Staff were aware they could make a complaint if they wanted to. They told us that if they needed to make a complaint, they felt the manager would act on their concerns.

We looked at incident and accident forms. We saw the completed forms were forwarded to the area manager. We saw any investigations required as a result of an incident had taken place in a timely manner. We saw recommendations had been acted on. This assured us that investigations had been thorough and completed in line with the provider’s policy.

Is the service well-led?

The staff we spoke with said the manager was very supportive and approachable. They told us if they had any concerns or witnessed poor practice they would report their concerns to. They were confident managers would act on their concerns.

The service had quality assurance systems in place. Records showed any shortfalls identified during audits had been addressed. There were systems in place to ensure staff were able to give feedback to their managers. These systems included: supervision, appraisal, staff meetings and managers meetings. This assured us that staff knowledge and experience was being taken into account on an on-going basis.

At the time of our visit there were 8 people living in the home. We attempted to speak with five of those people however, as we were not familiar with everyone’s way of communicating, we were only able to gain some of those people’s views. However, as we observed their care we saw that staff were very supportive and were familiar with people's ways of communicating.

People told us they felt safe and liked living in the home. They said they were happy, were looked after by the staff, and the staff supported them with their care.

No one raised any concerns with us during our visit. The people we spoke with said if they were not happy they would tell the staff.

During the course of the visit we spoke with the manager, two members of staff and five people who use the service. We also spoke with one healthcare professional who told us that staff always followed their advice and guidance and that they had no concerns about the standard of care and support provided by the service.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. The people who we were able to speak with told us that they liked living at Pennine Crescent and the staff were friendly and helped them to participate in a range of social and leisure activities in the local community.