This inspection took place at the providers registered office on 7 November 2016 and was announced.

Mrs Lynne Weatherly provides care services from an office in Tunbridge Wells to people in their own homes mainly in the Tunbridge Wells area. The care provided was tailored to people’s needs to ensure people were able to maintain or develop their independence or to support family carers. Care and support was delivered to adults with learning disabilities and autism. Some people required support with day-to-day tasks such as cooking, shopping, social activities, washing and dressing and help to maintain their health and wellbeing. There were three people using the service at the time of our inspection. The care and support people needed ranged from 20 hours a week to more intensive 24-hour care.

Mrs Lynne Weatherly (The provider) was registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service as the provider. 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 provider worked as part of the team delivering care to people. People and their relatives spoke about the staff in a positive light regarding their feelings of being safe and well cared for. Staff were trusted and well thought of by people. They thought that staff were caring and compassionate.

The provider assessed people’s needs and planned people’s care to maintain their safety, health and wellbeing. The provider had a clear understanding of people’s needs and how they could enable staff to deliver a high quality of care. Risks were assessed by staff to protect people. There were systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents.

Staff had received training about protecting people from potential abuse and showed a good understanding of what their responsibilities were in preventing abuse. Procedures for reporting any concerns the staff had were in place. The provider knew how and when they should escalate concerns following the local authorities safeguarding protocols.

Staff training covered both core training like first aid and more specialised training in learning disabilities and autism. We could see that the management and staff culture was based on recognised person centred good practice in learning disability care.

The provider and staff had received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood when and how to support people’s best interest if they lacked capacity to make certain decisions about their care.

Working in community settings, staff often had to work on their own, but they were provided with good support and an ‘Outside Office Hours’ number to call during evenings and at weekends if they had concerns about people. The service was able to continue to run in the event of emergencies arising so that people’s care would continue. For example, when there was heavy snow or if there was a power failure at the registered office.

Staff were recruited safely and had been through a selection process that ensured they were fit to work with people who needed care and support. Recruitment policies were in place that had been followed. Safe recruitment practices included background and criminal records checks prior to staff starting work.

The provider ensured that they could provide a workforce who could adapt and be flexible to meet people’s needs and when more staff were needed to deliver care, they were provided.

People and their relatives said that staff were well trained and understood their needs. They told us that staff looked at their care plans and followed the care as required. People told us that staff discussed their care with them so that they could decide how it would be delivered.

Staff had been trained to administer medicines safely and staff spoke confidently about their skills and abilities to do this well.

The provider gave staff guidance about supporting people to eat and d

The inspection was carried out by one inspector over a period of four hours. There were four people living at the home, although two of those were away on holiday on the day of the inspection. This report is based on our observations and review of records during the inspection. We also talked with two people who used the service and two visitors, the registered manager and one staff member, and observed interactions between staff and people at the home.

During this inspection we set out to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly. There were enough staff on duty with the appropriate skills and experience to meet the needs of the people living at the home. Staff provided care and support during the day and night. People used call bells to request assistance from staff.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have been submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well. One person told us "The staff help me with my tablets”. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to make their own choices in their everyday lives. Our observations confirmed this. One person told us “The staff are wonderful and very friendly".

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. There was evidence that staff regularly discussed any changes related to people’s care with them. Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided that met their wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives. We observed that when one person pressed a call bell, staff responded immediately.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. People told us they were asked for their feedback on the service they received and that they had also filled in a quality survey. They confirmed they had been listened to. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They said the management had consulted with them before implementing changes to the work hours of the home and their views had been taken into consideration.

There were five people living at the service at the time of our inspection. People we spoke with told us they were happy living there and that they received the right support from staff. One person told us “I like living here”, another person said “The staff are good, it’s a good place to live”.

People told us that they were supported to make their own day-to-day decisions and were involved in how their care and support was provided.

We looked at people’s care plans. We found that they had been reviewed recently, they contained some easy to read information and some evidence of the involvement of the people they were designed to support.

We looked around the service with the manager, we found that it was clean, well maintained and provided a safe and comfortable environment in which to live. One person told us “The house is always kept nicely”.

We found that arrangements were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

We met all the people living in the home, and spoke with some of them in more detail. People were very positive about the service. One person told us “since I’ve been here everything has been so good”, and another that “I love it here”, “there’s nothing I’d change.” People were very positive about the staff who worked in the home. We were told “all the staff here are very good, they’re like my friends”, “staff have been so kind and helpful” and “it’s brilliant! They [the staff] are all brilliant.”

When we arrived at the home, all five of the people who live there were out attending activities in the community. We saw that all the people in the home had an activity plan, which included regular routines and activities inside and outside the home.

We saw that people received care from their GP and hospital specialists as necessary, and attended routine healthcare appointments with their dentist and optician.

The people we spoke with told us they felt safe in the home, and would go to the manager or other staff if they had any concerns. People told us they attended house meetings, where they discussed what they wanted to do and had a say in the running of the house. The home provided forms for visitors to provide feedback on the service, and we saw that this was mostly positive.

Records were kept of staff recruitment, employment and training, which showed that when people were recruited the necessary employment checks were completed.

We were told that independence and individuality were promoted within the home. People living there told us they were supported and enabled to do things for themselves. They said they were encouraged to express their views and make or participate in making decisions relating to their care and treatment.

People told us “I looked around the house and stayed here before I moved in”. “I’ve been living here many years; I like living here”. “I see my keyworker all the time and we talk about what I need”. “We have house meetings every other week, where we talk about meals and any outings we want to go on, like bowling or the cinema or theatres to see rock and roll”.

People told us how they make day to day choices about their lives and plans for the future and described how staff supported them to do this.

We were told “I’m out every day. I work in a charity shop as a volunteer”. “I go to college where I learn spelling, reading and writing”. “I like IT – I learn about computers and the internet”.

“I go gardening and grow flowers in soil”. “I did art today”. “I go to discos and go bowling; we have dinners out sometimes”. “I like going to the cinema”. “We’re going to a disco tonight and I’m really looking forward to it”. “I go to church on Sunday”. “I see my [relative] and we have something to eat and a chat”.

“I like the food – especially fish and chips”. “I like the Italian lasagne we have”. “I cook starters and chicken and leek and make chocolate chip cookies”. “I like kebabs and make puddings like trifle”.

People told us that they felt safe and were well cared for by staff. People told us that they could speak with staff if they had a problem or were worried about anything.

One person said they had Diabetes and showed us a cupboard where their medication was kept. They explained how an alarm on their person, alerted staff should they fall forward. We were told “When I go out, I always tell staff where I’m going”. One person described fire drills in the house and showed us the fire exits.

People said that they liked living in the home and enjoyed having their own room.

People told us the staff were kind and caring and were always there if they needed to talk to someone. People explained that staff and their key workers helped them.

We were told “Staff are very good and brilliant”.