We inspected the service on 12 November 2018. The inspection was announced. Newman’s Care Home 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. The service accommodates up to eight people.

On the day of our inspection five people were using the service.

The home had been registered with CQC before Registering the Right Support and Building the Right Support guidance had been developed. However, we found the care provided included choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People living with learning disabilities at Newman’s Care Home were supported to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection on 24 May 2016 we rated the service ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’ overall. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring which demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to receive a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. People’s safety needs were considered by the staff caring for them. Risks to people’s individual safety were understood by staff, who found ways to support people to stay as safe as possible as their needs and goals changed. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and safe staff recruitment processes were used, to further reduce risks to people. Staff supported people to have the medicines they needed to remain well. The administration of people’s medicines was checked, so the registered manager could be assured people received these safely. Staff reviewed any untoward incidents, so any learning could be taken, and risks reduced further.

People continued to receive an effective service. Staff training and support was linked to the needs of the people living at the home, so people’s individual needs would be met. People were supported have enough to eat and drink, based on their preferences. Staff had developed good systems for working with other health and social care professionals, so people’s health needs would be met promptly. 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. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.

People continued to receive care from staff who were compassionate and caring and people were treated with dignity and respect. Strong bonds had been formed between people and the staff who supported them. Staff understood people’s histories and preferences and knew what mattered to the people they cared for. Staff spent time chatting with people and knew how people liked to be comforted. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible, with support from staff.

People continued to receive a responsive service. People’s needs were considered before they came to live at Newman’s Care Home, and care plans were developed to meet their needs. People’s relatives and other health and social care professionals had been consulted about planned care. Staff suggestions for developing people’s care plans futher, as people’s needs changed, were listened to. People had opportunities to spend their time enjoying themselves in the ways they liked. This included trips out, employment placements and spending time with people who were important to them. People were supported to express their spirituality, where appropriate.

Systems were in place to support people to raise any concerns or make any complaints. None of the people or their relatives had wanted to make any complaints because they considered the care provided was

This inspection took place on 12 and 19 April 2016 and was announced.

Newman’s Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for adults with a learning disability. It has the capacity for 8 people to live in one of their three houses. At this inspection 7 people were living there.

A registered manager was in post and was present during our inspection. 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.

People were protected from harm and abuse by staff who knew how to recognise and respond appropriately to concerns. Staff knew how to support people safely and risks associated with people’s care had been assessed and steps were taken to minimise harm. Staff did not start work until checks had been made to make sure they were suitable to support people.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The provider had systems in place to adapt to the changing needs of people and to make provision for additional staffing when required.

People were supported by staff who were caring and compassionate and who treated people with dignity and respect. Staff engaged with people respectively and communicated with people in a way they understood. People had strong links with the local community and were engaged in vocational and leisure activities which they enjoyed and that suited their preferences.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported by the provider and the registered manager who promoted an open and transparent culture.

People’s independence was encouraged and staff respected their privacy and dignity. People had a choice of food to eat and were prompted to maintain a healthy balanced diet. People’s routine health needs were monitored and people had access to healthcare when they needed it.

People were aware of who the management team were and felt they were approachable. People’s views were sought about the quality of the service and people felt their opinions were valued. Checks were carried out to monitor and improve the service people received.

People were involved in the development of the support they received and in changes to their home. Families and friends were encouraged to visit at any time and their views and opinions were sought and acted on.

We met four of the six people who lived at the care home. We spoke with three people who told us they liked living at the home and they felt safe. They said the staff were kind and helpful and they were able to raise any ideas or concerns with them.

We found that people had been helped to look their best and were happy with the support they received. They were well supported with their care and health needs and their care plans were kept under review.

Suitable systems were in place to support people with their daily medicines.

The staff team continued to be stable which provided people with consistent support by staff they knew very well. We saw that the staff engaged pleasantly with people. They offered them choices and treated them with respect. The staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt well supported. Suitable training was provided.

When we visited we met five of the six people who lived at the care home. We found that people had been helped to look their best and were happy with the support they received. They were well supported with their care and health needs and their care plans were kept under review.

We saw that the staff were pleasant with people. They offered them choices and treated them with respect.

Suitable systems were in place to support people with their daily medicines but storage arrangements needed to be improved.

The staffing levels were adequate to support people while at home and when out in the community.

The provider monitored the quality of the service and people felt able to tell the provider and the manager if they were unhappy or had a concern.

We did this review to check what improvements Newman’s Care Home had made following our previous review of the service in July 2011.

We met two people who use the service and saw records about other people’s health and support needs. We also spoke with the registered manager and the provider.

We issued compliance actions at the last inspection for three of the outcome areas we assessed. At this inspection we found that the owner’s action plan had been carried out and improvements made. In two outcome areas we found that further improvements were needed, so we have issued improvement actions for these.

We met two of the people living at Newman’s Care Home. Both were very smartly dressed, they were warm and comfortable in their lounge. One said they were well and they had been supported to visit their family recently. The other person engaged with the registered manager in a relaxed and affectionate way. Other people were out at planned activities such as day centres.

The registered manager told us how she had addressed people’s health needs. For example, concerns about one person’s weight loss had been followed up with their GP and a nutritional supplement prescribed. The care planning systems had been improved.

We saw records of the monitoring checks the provider had completed every six weeks since our last inspection. The checks had been carried out before then but there were no formal records of these visits since September 2010. The records showed the monitoring included areas such as the experiences of people living in the home, records and health and safety. Areas for improvement had been identified and actions agreed with the registered manager.

The people we met during our unannounced visit were well presented and they seemed relaxed in their home. People were being supported by a very stable team so they knew the staff well.

The person we spoke to in-depth said she felt safe in her home. She told us that the staff respected her privacy. She decided how to spend her time and chose her routines such as when to get up and go to bed. She felt the staff treat her with respect.

There was good evidence that people were being well supported with their physical health needs. Not all people’s support needs were written in their care plans which could mean staff were not clear of the best way to help them.

The backgrounds of new staff were not being checked carefully enough to fully protect the vulnerable people living in the home. The owners were not checking the records so they had not picked up these shortfalls.