Monro Avenue provides care and support for up to 14 people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the last inspection carried out on the 10 and 13 July 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained, 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 requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs and appropriate recruitment procedures were followed. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

People continued to receive effective care. Staff were provided with induction training and specific training to meet the needs of the people using the service. They were supported with regular supervision and annual appraisals. People were supported to lead a healthy lifestyle and maintain good health and nutrition.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People or their representatives were involved in the planning their care. The care plans were personalised to reflect people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. People knew how to make a complaint and systems were in place to respond to complaints and learn from them.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and staff told us that they had confidence in the registered manager’s ability to provide high quality managerial oversight and leadership at the service. Quality assurance systems were in place to continually monitor the service and drive continual improvement.

We spoke with relatives of three people that lived at Monro Avenue. They all told us that they were happy with the care and support that their family member was receiving. One person told us “they are brilliant, you can’t fault them, the staff are lovely”. Another person told us that their family member was “extremely happy” at Monro Avenue.

We found that people’s requirements had been assessed so that care and treatment was planned to meet their individual needs.

We found that there were arrangements in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service that people received.

We found that Monro Avenue provided care that was safe, effective, compassionate and well managed.

We spoke to two people who used the service, both said that they were very happy to be at Monro Avenue. One person was delighted that their bedroom had been decorated just as they wished it to be.

We spoke with relatives of people who used the service and they told us that they “never wanted their relative to be moved from Monro Avenue as they were very happy there”. Another relative told us that the staff were always “very kind and caring”.

We observed that staff communicated well with people and took time to explain what was happening, for example who was going to support a person with bathing and when a person was going to attend day care. We saw that staff respected one person's wishes to get up late.

One person told us that the staff looked after them properly. Our observations confirmed people had their own individual routines which were respected.

One person told us they liked their bedroom and another person said they liked the new conservatory.

This inspection was carried out 10 & 13 July 2015 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Monro Avenue is a care home, which provides residential care for up to 14 people with a learning disability. On the day of our inspection 13 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and to know how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs.

Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service.

Medicines were managed safely and the processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

Staff received a comprehensive induction process and ongoing training. They were well supported by the registered manager and had regular one to one supervisions.

Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

Staff always gained consent before supporting people.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required.

People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including doctors, opticians and dentists.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well.

People and relatives where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were supported to follow their interests.

A complaints procedure was in place and accessible to all. People knew how to complain.

Effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.