About the service:

Mountjoy provides personal care and accommodation for up to eight people with a learning disability and behaviours that may challenge. At the time of this inspection there were seven people using the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they were consistently treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Without exception, people told us they felt safe and well supported. One person said, “Yes I do, staff are lovely.” One person’s relatives praised the standards of support provided by staff and they told us their family member was happy and looked after better than they could have wished for.

People received personalised support from staff who knew them well. Staff had built positive relationships with people living in the service. Staff supported people to retain their independence and to remain involved in planning and reviewing their care to ensure it was provided in accordance with their own preferences.

Staff worked closely with a range of community health professionals to promote good outcomes for people.

The service was consistently well-led. People felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager and were confident they would be addressed. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager.

The registered manager and staff completed a range of quality checks and audits of the service to make sure the care and support provided was of high quality. This supported the continuous improvement of the service.

The service met the characteristics of good in all key questions.

Rating at last inspection: The service was last inspected August 2016 and rated Good. At this inspection we found the service had maintained its rating of Good.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection which took place to re-assess the quality of the service provided.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

This ‘comprehensive rated’ inspection of 24 Mountjoy Road took place on 10 August 2016 and was announced. At the last inspection on 7 February 2014 the service met all of the regulations we assessed under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These regulations were superseded on 1 April 2015 by the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Mountjoy Road is a care home that is part of the Bridgewood Trust and is registered to provide accommodation for people who require support with their personal care. It provides this service to a maximum of eight adults who may have a learning disability. The service is on a quiet residential road close to the centre of town, has access to local bus transport links and provides all single occupancy accommodation. There were six people using the service at the time of the inspection.

The registered provider was required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection there was a manager that had been registered and in post for almost six years. 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. The registered manager was unavailable on the day of the inspection, but the service was being managed by a senior staff member, who was assisted later in the day by two support workers.

People were protected from the risk of harm because the registered provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of managing potential and actual safeguarding concerns. Risks were also managed and reduced on an individual and group basis so that people avoided injury of harm wherever possible.

The premises were safely maintained and there was evidence in the form of maintenance certificates, contracts and records to show this. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s need and we saw that rosters accurately cross referenced with the people that were on duty. Recruitment policies, procedures and practices were carefully followed to ensure staff were suitable to care for and support vulnerable people. We found that the management of medication was safely carried out.

We saw that people were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and appraised regarding their personal performance. Communication was effective, people’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected.

Employees of the service had knowledge and understanding of their roles and responsibilities in respect of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and they understood the importance of people being supported to make decisions for themselves. Where a person lacked capacity to make their own decisions the registered manager used the legislation to work with other health and social care professionals and family members to ensure a decision was made in the person’s best interests.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. The premises were suitable for providing care and support to people with a learning disability, as they were domestic, comfortable, well-furnished and pleasantly decorated.

We found that people received compassionate care from kind staff and that staff knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook care and support tasks.

People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and inde

The home had a welcoming and calm atmosphere. The staff we spoke with told us that it had a “family atmosphere because people had been here together for a long time”

We spoke three people who used the service. They told us they liked living at the home, one person told us “it’s nice here.” Another told us “I like gardening and listening to music”.

The people who lived at the home used day centres in the community and were out of the home most of the day. Staff told us that the day centre offered craft skills, gardening opportunities and day trips out.

We looked at the care and support plans of four people who used the service. We saw that they were person centred and reviewed on a regular basis. Each plan had an up to date risk assessment and risk plan in place. We saw evidence that the risk plans were being reviewed on a regular basis to reflect the changing needs of the individual. The home had monthly meetings for people using the service that covered a wide range of topics.

We spoke with three members of staff who told us that they enjoyed working at the home. They told us that they felt the people who used the service were treated with dignity and respect. We saw that interaction between the staff and residents was warm and respectful.

We saw evidence that regular health and safety audits were carried out at the home.

We saw that the appropriate checks had been carried out prior to employment of staff. We saw evidence that staff had regular training and the staff we spoke with told us they felt the training was appropriate to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

The home had an up to date safeguarding policy in place and we saw that staff had training in safeguarding. This meant that the home had a system in place to reduce the risk of harm to the people who used the service.

The people we spoke with told us that they were happy living at Mountjoy Road, care was good and they felt safe. People told us about the activities they were involved with and how they were encouraged to remain independent.

We spoke to one person who had a care review the previous day and they told us how they were involved in the discussion about their care needs