We inspected Allan House on 9 March 2017, which was unannounced. At our last inspection we found that all the legal requirements were being met.

Allan House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to nine people. People who used the service predominately had a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were nine people who used the service.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People described staff as going 'the extra mile' when they provided care and support. People were treated with care, kindness and respect and staff promoted people's independence and right to privacy.

People were supported to establish and maintain friendships and relationships with people that were important to them. Staff had clear values and were dedicated to providing a high standard of care that was inclusive for people.

We found medicines were managed in a way that kept people safe from potential harm.

People were kept safe because staff understood how to recognise possible signs of abuse and the actions they needed to take if people were at risk of harm.

People’s risks were assessed in a way that kept them safe whilst promoting and enabling people to be as independent as possible.

We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. The registered manager made changes to staffing levels when people’s needs changed.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and the provider had safe recruitment procedures that ensured people were supported by suitable staff.

Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate decisions are made in people’s best interests where they are unable to do this for themselves.

People’s capacity to make specific decisions was in the process of being assessed and staff knew how to support people in a way that was in their best interests. We found that where people were able they consented to their care and treatment.

People were supported with their individual nutritional needs and staff supported people to maintain a healthy diet. People were able to access health services when needed with support from staff.

There was a strong focus on person centred care and people’s preferences in care were recorded throughout the care plans. People were supported to be involved in hobbies and interests that were important to them.

The provider had a complaints procedure that was available to people in a format that they understood. There was a system in place to investigate and respond to complaints received.

Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable. Staff understood the values of the service and were enthusiastic about their role and what their support meant for people.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided. The registered manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

We inspected Allan House on 12 February 2015 which was unannounced.

Allan House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to nine people. People who use the service predominately had a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were nine people who used the service.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People’s risks were assessed in a way that kept them safe whilst promoting their independence.

People who used the service received their medicines safely. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected from risks associated with medicines management.

We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and the provider had safe recruitment procedures that ensured people were supported by suitable staff.

Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate decisions are made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves. People’s capacity had been assessed and staff knew how to support people in a way that was in their best interests.

People told us that staff were kind and caring. Staff treated people with respect, gave choices and listened to what people wanted.

People’s preferences in care were recorded throughout the care plans and we saw that people were supported to be involved in hobbies and interests that were important to them.

The provider had a complaints procedure that was available to people in a format that they understood.

Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable and led the team well. The registered manager and staff all had clear values and were passionate about their role and what it meant for people.

People were encouraged to be involved in the improvement of the service and provide feedback. The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the service and we saw that improvements had been made.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who used the service, staff who provided support and the registered manager. We did this to help us understand the experiences of people who lived at the home.

We found that the provider had systems in place to gain consent for care and treatment from people who used the service. We spoke with staff who told us that they respected people’s decisions and understood their responsibilities with regards to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We observed people who used the service being treated in a caring and respectful way. One person told us, “I like the staff they are kind to me and they listen to me”. Another person told us, “I feel happy here. I am treated well”. We saw records that showed care was planned and delivered in line with people’s preferences. Staff we spoke with knew the needs of people who used the service and how they preferred care to be carried out.

We saw that the provider had systems in place that prevented the risk of cross infection. We saw staff used protective equipment during our inspection and staff we spoke with understood the importance of infection control.

The provider had enough staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff we spoke with told us that they took on extra work to cover sickness and holidays to ensure that people received consistent care.

The provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. We saw that the service was well led by the registered manager.

People told us they liked living at Allan House. Comments included," I am happy here" and "We do what we want". People were involved in discussions about their care including the activities they took part in and the meals they ate. Plans of care provided information about people's preferences and staff told us they talked with people about their care needs. Records of these discussions would have confirmed that people were fully involved in decisions about their care.

People were supported to have their health and personal care needs met. People were able to take part in activities they wanted to do.

People said they felt able to talk to staff about any concerns. One person said, "I go to staff if I have a problem". Systems were in place to make sure that staff knew about safeguarding issues.

People told us that they liked the staff and got on well with them. There was a system in place to check staff's suitability to work at the home and we saw that checks were in place. There was no formal system in place to assess and manage risks prior to the full employment checks being completed and in circumstances where there a CRB check showed previous concerns.

People told us that they knew how to raise any problems and that the care staff would try and sort them out.