We inspected Norcott House on 12 and 13 February 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced which meant the home did not know we were coming.

Norcott House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 11 people with learning disabilities. The home comprises of two separate buildings, each containing two living units, which provide gender specific accommodation. Each unit contains shared kitchens and bathrooms. Depending on their assessed needs, some people shared lounge areas and some people had their own lounge areas.

Norcott House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home had 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.

Medicines management and administration at Norcott House was safe. We identified some issues with medicines recording which the registered manager took immediate steps to address.

Norcott House was clean and odour-free. Support workers were responsible for cleaning and we saw they encouraged people to get involved in order to promote their independence.

Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. Recruitment records showed procedures in place for vetting prospective new staff were robust.

A range of person-centred risk assessments were in place for each person according to their assessed needs. People were supported to take risks if the benefits outweighed them.

A range of feedback measures were in place to ensure the service learned lessons when things went wrong.

Support workers had access to training and supervision to help them provide people with effective care and treatment. They told us they felt supported by managers at the home.

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.

Most feedback from people and their relatives about the food at Norcott House was positive. Action was being taken to adapt meal choices to better meet one person’s preferences.

Staff at the home worked well together as a team.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals in order to meet their wider health needs.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and that they promoted people’s privacy and dignity. We saw people were supported to be independent.

People and their relatives told us, and records showed, people were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

The service ensured people’s expressed cultural and diversity needs were met. Those people who needed support with decision-making had access to advocacy services.

People’s care plans contained information about their communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. The registered manager planned to review the guidance and implement any further requirements.

People and their relatives told us they felt able to complain about the service if they needed to. One complaint had been made and resolved since the last inspection.

People’s care plans were detailed and person-centred. Staff were responsive to incidents where people experienced behaviours which may challenge others and any such incidents were analysed to ensure care plans contained up to date information.

People had access to a range of meaningful activities and had opportunities to go on holiday. Records showed they were regularly consulted about their activities preferences and supported to stay in touch with their r

On the day of our inspection we arrived at the service at 9.30am and met with the manager. They explained care was provided to people in Norcott House and Norcott Lodge and both units were in the same grounds. We were told each of the two units had a manager in place whose main duties were to manage the day to day running of their unit. We spoke with both managers who told us each unit had a deputy manager who supported them. We also spoke with the clinical services manager and four support staff during our inspection. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service.

We looked around both units and saw all of the bedrooms had en-suite toilets and sinks. Communal bathrooms and shower rooms were located close to people's bedrooms. We saw people’s bedrooms had been personalised and contained items such as photographs and soft toys.

We spoke with three people who used the service and they told us they were happy at the home. We saw each person had a structured activity programme in place. This showed the service was meeting the social needs of people who used the service.

During our inspection we looked at the recruitment procedures in place for the service. This showed that staff were being properly checked to make sure they were suitable and safe to work with vulnerable people.

We looked at how people were made aware of the complaints system in place. We found this was provided in a format that met people's needs.

We looked at people's care records and other records relevant to the management of the service. We found records were kept securely and could be located promptly when required.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

We visited Norrcott House and spoke with four people using the service, the manager, deputy managers, team leaders, seven support workers and the clinical service manager.

The people who we were able to speak with told us that they liked living at Norcott House and the staff were friendly and helped them to access a range of social and leisure activities in the local community.

This inspection took place on 24 and 28 July 2015 and was unannounced. We previously inspected the service on 15 January 2014. The service was not in breach of health and social care regulations at that time.

Norcott House is registered to provide personal care for up to 11 people with learning disabilities. The home comprises of four separate living units, which provide gender specific accommodation. Each person living at the home has access to both communal and private areas. This means people have the opportunity to live within small, personalised accommodation but with the support of staff.

The service had a registered manager in place. The registered manager was on leave and therefore not present at the 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 told us they felt safe living at Norcott House and their family members also said they felt their relatives were safe. Staff had a thorough understanding of safeguarding procedures and staff knew what to do if they thought anyone was at risk of harm or abuse.

We found that staff were recruited safely and trained appropriately. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were offered opportunities for self-development.

Medication was managed appropriately and staff who were responsible for administering medication had been trained to do so.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found that staff had a thorough understanding of these safeguards. Authorisation had been appropriately sought when people’s freedom or liberty was being restricted.

People received personalised care and were involved in a range of activities, depending on their interests.

A caring environment was evident and people’s cultural and religious needs were considered. Staff were caring in their approach and there was a positive atmosphere in the home. People’s dignity and privacy were respected.

People’s views were sought and they were encouraged to be involved in the running of the home and were empowered to be as independent as possible.

Staff and relatives that we spoke with felt the home was well led. Regular checks and audits took place to try to continually improve the home.