Moorview House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

This service also provides care and support to people living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Moorview House is situated in Robin Hoods Bay near Whitby. The home accommodates and provides care and support for up to 16 people whose main needs are associated with a learning disability. Supported living services are based in the Whitby and Scarborough area.

Although the care service provides accommodation for 16 people, which does not meet the principles of registering the right support, it was clear it had been developed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Inspection site visits took place on 29 March, 12 and 25 April 2018. At the time of this inspection, the service was providing support to eight people in the care home and 36 people in supported living accommodation.

At the last comprehensive inspection in August 2015 we found the service was meeting requirements and awarded a rating of good. At this inspection we found the registered manager and staff team had developed the service further to achieve an outstanding rating.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission. They assisted throughout the inspection process. 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.

There was an extremely person-centred culture where staff displayed empathy and worked with people and their relatives to understand how to best support them. Life history documents had been developed and staff were encouraged to read these and update them when new information was discovered.

Staff anticipated people’s needs and recognised distress and discomfort at the earliest stage. Staff were particularly sensitive to times when people needed caring and compassionate support.

Staff and management were enthusiastic and committed in helping people to become as independent as possible. They had fantastic relationships with a local charity who had funded many initiatives the service had to improve and promote people’s independence.

The registered manager was proactive in ensuring people were able to access learning resources as soon as possible to encourage and promote independence. People has been able to achieve life time goals due to this approach and the resources made available.

Staff were highly motivated and offered care and support that was exceptionally compassionate and kind. Respect for privacy and dignity was at the heart of the service’s culture and values.

The registered manager demonstrated clear visions and values and was passionate and committed to providing an excellent person-centred service for people and their relatives. These values were owned by staff who were equally committed and enthusiastic about fulfilling their roles and responsibilities in a way that delivered the best possible outcomes for people.

Admissions to the service were carefully considered and subject to a transition period that was suitable to the individual. The service ensured peo

This inspection took place on 27 August 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection 20 August 2013 there were no identified breaches of legal requirements.

Moorview House provides accommodation for people who require personal care for up to 16 people who have a learning disability and also is registered to provide personal care to people in the community. There were 12 people living in the home when we visited and 15 people were being supported through the domiciliary care aspect of the service. The home is a former private residence in the village of Robin Hoods Bay and is close to local shops and transport links. There is a self-contained flat on the ground floor, two lounges, a kitchen and dining area. The home had a garden area with pond.

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. A deputy manager who regularly managed the day to day care supported the registered manager in the running of the home.

People told us they felt safe at the home and in the community. Risks were managed well and gave people freedom, yet protected them from harm. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report any abuse. Staffing levels were sufficient and flexible to support people with their care and enable them to pursue interests of their choice in the community. People were supported with their medicines safely.

Staff knew people well and were trained, skilled and competent to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported and supervised in their roles.

The service had referred people appropriately for consideration under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and at the time of inspection there was one DoLS in place to protect a person and others around them from the risk of harm. Staff had been trained, and had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were empowered to make decisions and choices around their care.

People were supported to have a balanced and appropriate diet and they were involved in planning, shopping for and preparing meals.

People’s medical and psychological needs were well assessed. The service had a positive approach to maintaining good health and wellbeing and people had access to health care services when they needed them.

Staff had developed positive, respectful relationships with people and were kind and caring in their approach. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and they were supported to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives.

People told us they were very happy with the care and support they received, which was tailored to support them reach their goals. Care professionals told us that staff promoted people’s involvement in their care and achieved exceptional results. Staff supported people to reflect on what they wanted from their lives enabled them to form goals. They explored with people the possible interests they may wish to follow and discussed skills they may wish to develop. People were encouraged and enabled to use technology and other aids to express their views.

The service was outstanding in the way that it placed each individual at the centre of their care and approached all planning from the point of view of the person. People were closely involved in the planning and review of their care and support and they were empowered to express their views in whatever way was appropriate to them. Daily routines were centred around people’s preferences and the service was particularly flexible and responsive to individual choices. People were supported to lead fulfilling lives pursuing activities of their choice in the home and out in the community.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement. People and staff were actively involved in developing the service. There was strong leadership which promoted an open culture and which put people at the heart of the service.

We spoke with three people who used the service, a visiting health care professional, four members of staff and the provider. People told us that they liked living at Moorview House. One person told us "It's brilliant, I go out to the gym and do horse riding."

People told us they were consulted about their care and involved in decisions about their lives.

Moorview House also operates a domiciliary care service where a small number of people are supported in the community. During this inspection we concentrated upon the care offered to the people who lived in the home.

We found that the home obtained people's consent to care and treatment, assessed mental capacity and understood capacity issues. We saw evidence that decisions had been made in people's best interests.

People's care needs were assessed and care plans were written from the point of view of each person with their welfare as most important. Care plans were reviewed and risk had been assessed.

People were protected by the way the service handled medication.

Staff were safely recruited according to policy.

Moorview House had an effective system in place to assess and monitor the quality of service.

We visited Moorview House and spoke with three people who lived there. Although the service is also registered to offer care to a small number of people who live in the community we focused our inspection upon people who lived in the home.

People were consulted about their care. They told us that they enjoyed living at Moorview House and that they were able to live the lives they chose with staff support. People were protected from harm and the risk of harm through staff training and risk assessments. The service referred safeguarding incidents to the local authority and to CQC as required to ensure people were protected. Staff also had training in mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards. This ensured people were enabled to make the decisions they had the capacity to make and were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty. Staff were trained to give appropriate care and had specialist training where needed. This ensured they had the skills to offer appropriate care to all the people who lived at Moorview House and those who were supported in the community. The home had a complaints procedure and people told us that they knew how to complain.

The people whom we spoke with said they were able to consent to their care and treatment. One person said ‘The staff listen to me’. Another said ‘I can choose what I like to do. I have looked at my paperwork with the staff’’.

People receiving care and support were seen to be treated with dignity and respect by the staff. One person said ‘The staff look after me, I have no complaints’. Another person said ‘The staff help me’.

We asked some people whom we spoke with if they were unhappy about anything would they tell the staff. They replied ‘Yes’. One person said ‘I would say if I was not happy with something’. We asked if they felt the issue would be acted upon, they said ‘Yes’.

People we spoke with did not know if staff received training. One person said ‘The staff give me help with things I cannot do for myself’. Another person said ‘The staff are nice’.

We were told by people living at the home that the provider visits everyday and that she asked them for their views. One person said ‘I am asked if everything is alright for me. It is good living here. I am happy’.