This inspection took place on the 14 February 2017 and was unannounced.

3 New Hill is a care home which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to three people with a learning disability. The home is a bungalow style building situated in the village of Purley in Berkshire. It is situated near to local amenities and public transport. At the time of the inspection there were two people living in the care home. Both people needed care and support from staff at all times.

The home is required to have 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager had applied to register and was some way through the process.

The recruitment and selection process ensured people were supported by staff of good character. There was a sufficient amount of experienced and trained staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse.

People were provided with effective care from a dedicated staff team who had received support through supervision, staff meetings and training. Their care plans detailed how they wanted their needs to be met. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and specific behavioural and/or health related issues. They helped to promote people’s independence whilst minimising the risks. Staff treated people with kindness and respect and had regular contact with people’s families to make sure they were fully informed about the care and support their relative received.

The service had taken the necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights. They understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and support people’s individual needs. People received good quality care. The provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This was generally undertaken by other care home managers within the group using internal audits, through care reviews and by requesting feedback from people and their representatives.

The people living in the home or their representatives had been given appropriate information about the service and the care and support they could expect.

People were spoken to with respect, given choices and encouraged to make decisions. One person we spoke with said “I love it here, I love the staff.”

People were offered and supported to enjoy, suitable and nutritious food and drink.

Staff received appropriate professional development. Staff we spoke with said the training was “very good.” They also said there was an open door policy and they felt supported by management.

There was a system in place to regularly monitor and assess the quality of the service that people received.

We found that people were told about the care they were going to receive and staff gave people the chance to respond before continuing. We saw people were treated in a caring way. One person told us that their relative liked living in the home for so many years and all of the staff really took care of them.

Medications were administered safely and relatives of people living in the home told us that they saw staff checking medications before they were given.

Most staff in the home had worked there for many years. They told us about how they were recruited and their induction process. Relatives we spoke with told us that staff seemed well trained and that people felt safe in the home.

The home had an appropriate complaints procedure. The process was available in different formats so people living in the home knew how to make a complaint.

There were accurate and up to date records kept. People’s care plans were updated daily and reviewed within the documented timescales. Other records in the home were also kept to ensure the quality of service remained consistent.

People living in the home had individual communication needs and were unable to provide their views about their experiences of living in the home. A relative visiting the home described the care provided to her sister as excellent. She also told us that she thought that the manager was excellent. We were told that all staff were extremely caring.

This inspection took place on the 26 and 28 November 2014 and was unannounced.

Mrs P M Eales t/a Just Homes - 3 New Hill is a care home and is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to three people. The home is a detached bungalow within a residential area on the outskirts of Reading. People have their own bedrooms and use of communal areas that includes an enclosed private garden. People living in the home needed support from staff at all times and had a range of support needs. People were unable to communicate verbally or use sign language.

There is a full time 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

There was a long standing staff team who had received the support and training they needed to protect people and keep them safe. The numbers of staff working throughout various times of the day and night were determined from people’s assessed and changing needs. Staff responded appropriately when people presented with challenging behaviours, which protected the person and others. Staff had received training to administer people’s medication safely.

People were provided with effective care and support from a team of staff who had received the support they needed to meet their learning and development goals. Further training that staff had not received such as autism awareness had been scheduled for staff which would help them support people’s individualised care.

People were unable to communicate verbally or use sign language. However staff understood their needs and were able to communicate with them effectively from body language. Staff encouraged people to express themselves and make decisions about their lives.

People using the service at the time of our visit did not have the capacity to make particular decisions. The manager had submitted Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications to the local authority to provide protection for the people. The MCA provides the legal framework for acting and making decisions on behalf of individuals who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The DoLS provide legal protection for vulnerable people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty.

People were supported to maintain a balanced nutritional diet to suit their individual needs and taste. This was supported by external health care professionals and continual assessment. People had health care action plans and staff supported them to access external health care appointments. Some people needed specialist equipment, which staff were trained to use such as hoists to ensure the safety and comfort of the person when being repositioned.

People’s families acted on their behalf and were fully involved in the planning and reviewing of their relatives care and support needs. Staff were kind and considerate towards people and they helped them to participate in individualised and or group activities of their choosing either within the home or community.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. The service had regular contact with people’s relatives who told us staff were approachable and that they felt listened to and were always kept fully informed. They were encouraged to be involved in the decisions about the person’s care and support needs.

Health and safety checks were completed. However, there were no formal processes to monitor the services provided. We have made a recommendation that the service considers guidance and training to develop the auditing skills of the management team.