What life is like for people using this service:

• People enjoyed living at Park House and were cared for by staff who were caring and considerate.

• Staff understood people’s rights to dignity, respect and independence and promoted these in the way they cared for people.

• People, their relatives and other health and social care professionals were involved in planning people’s care. Staff used people’s preferred ways of communicating, to assist people to decide what care they wanted.

• People were supported to enjoy a range of activities which reflected their interests, and enhanced their lives.

• People received support to keep in touch with relatives and friends who were important to them.

• People had access to the healthcare they wanted. Staff highlighted how relationships developed with other health and social care professionals had led to prompt access to health provision. This improved health and well-being outcomes for people living at Park House.

• Systems were in place to promote people’s safety, and staff understood and supported people so their individual risks were reduced.

• There was sufficient staff to care for people and the environment was regularly checked, to enhance people’s safety.

• Staff had received training and developed the skills they needed to care for people. The risk of accidental harm or infections was reduced as staff used the resources and equipment provided to do this.

• We found people’s medicines were administered safely. Staff provided people with the support they needed to have the medicines they needed to remain well, and people’s medicines were regularly reviewed and checked.

• The registered manager and staff worked together to plan people’s care, so people’s needs would be met and they would enjoy a good level of well-being.

• People and staff and were encouraged to make any suggestions for improving the care provided and the service further. The registered manager planned to obtain further feedback from people’s relatives and other health and social care professionals, and was intending to use this feedback to reflect on the quality of care provided.

• The registered manager and strove to drive through improvements in people’s care, so people would continue to enjoy living at Park House.

• We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Park House was published on 15 July 2016.

About the service: Park House is a is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation. There were six younger people, living with either learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders, at the home at the time of the inspection.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

This inspection took place on 13 June 2016 and was unannounced. Park House provides accommodation and personal care for up to nine people who have a learning disability. There were six people who were living at the home on the day of our visit.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of 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 lived in a safe environment as staff knew how to protect people from harm. Staff recognised signs of abuse and knew how to report this. Risk assessments were in place and staff took appropriate actions to minimise risks without taking away people’s right to make decisions. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Regular reviews of people’s care and the deployment of staff meant staffing levels reflected the support needs of people who lived there. People’s medicines were administered and managed in a way that kept people safe.

The provider supported their staff by arranging training and up-skilling staff in areas that were specific to the people who lived in the home. Staff had weekly learning and development time which staff found useful. People received care and support that was in-line with their needs and preferences. Staff provided people’s care with their consent and agreement and understood and recognised the importance of this. We found people were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet and with enough fluids to keep them healthy. People had access to healthcare professionals when they required them.

We saw that people were involved in the planning around their care. People’s views and decisions they had made about their care were listened and acted upon. People told us that staff treated them kindly, with dignity and their privacy was respected. People received individual responsive care and support that was in line with their preferences which had a positive outcome for people who used the service.

People and relatives knew how to complain and felt comfortable to do this should they feel they needed to. We looked at the providers complaints over the last 12 months and found that 10 complaints had been received. These had been responded to with satisfactory outcomes for those who had raised the complaint.

The registered manager demonstrated clear leadership. Staff were supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively, which meant that people’s received care and support in-line with their needs and wishes.

We found that the checks the provider completed focused upon the experiences people received. Where areas for improvement were identified, systems were in place to ensure that lessons were learnt and used to improve staff practice.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

The people who lived in the home and their relatives told us they were pleased with the care provided. They felt that their views were respected and listened to.

People told us they felt safe. We saw that people were free to go out and about as part of their daily routine. One person told us, “They’re great”.

We saw that staff had received specialist training in how to respond to peoples complex behaviours. This was to protect people’s physical wellbeing as well as their human rights and dignity.

We found that people’s medication was managed in a safe and effective way. This ensured that people received the right medication in the right quantities at the right times.

Recruitment processes showed that staff employed to work at the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people who lived there.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While nobody was currently subject to a DoLS 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 support they received. They told us that the registered manager and the staff had asked them what their needs and wishes were and how they would like them met. One person said, “We’re always talking about what I’m going to do”. Another person said, “They asked me about lots of things and I tell them what I would like to do”.

Personal records confirmed people’s needs and preferences had been recorded and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

People told us they were happy to discuss their support with staff. They said that staff obtained help for them if they were unwell. This meant people were helped to keep in good health, have access to health care services and received ongoing support.

We found that the staff received the support and training that enabled them to meet the needs of the people living in the home.

Is the service caring?

People we talked with told us their wishes were respected and they were able to live their lives as they wished. Staff took the time to find out about people’s background. Staff knew people’s needs well and how they needed to be supported. This meant that staff cared about the person as an individual and were concerned about their well-being and personal development.

People and their relatives were encouraged to make their views known about their care. People that we talked with told us that they found the registered manager and the staff easy to approach about any issues they had. This meant that people were listened to and they felt that their views mattered.

Is the service responsive?

People had been assessed before they moved into the home so that arrangements could be made to meet their needs.

People and their relatives told us they talked with the registered manager and the staff about what was important to them. They talked the about activities they took part in and their meals. They told us that their support plans had been changed as a result.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager and the staff demonstrated values that promoted involvement, openness, dignity, respect and independence. We talked with staff who showed they understood those values as they discussed their role and responsibilities in their work. This meant the service promoted an open culture that was centred on the individual and empowered them to take control of their life as much as they were able.

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the home so that potential improvements in meeting people’s care needs could be identified and put into place.

We talked with people who lived in the home and they said that they were well looked after. They said the staff always asked them how they would like things to be done, were always mindful of their privacy and treated them with respect. They told us staff talked with them about how they would like their support to be provided.

People told us that they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, “The staff are ace”.

The provider had developed a system whereby they can monitor how well the home is meeting the needs of the people who live there.

We visited the service on 05 July 2012. We used a number of methods to help us understand the experience of people who used the service, because people were not all able to tell us their views.

We spoke with two people, four staff, the acting manager and the head of adult provision. We observed staff interaction with six people using an observational tool designed for the Care Quality Commission. We observed a shift handover meeting. We looked at one person’s care records in detail, and a few records about other people. We looked at records about staff and running of the home.

People were positive about their life at the home, were treated as individuals and appeared well cared for. The atmosphere was friendly and lively. People took part in activities in line with their interests and personal goals.

People were asked for consent to care, and their views respected. Best interest decisions were made with relatives and professionals. People had health checks and their health, behaviour and wellbeing was monitored.

Staff understood people’s needs and the way people communicated. They felt well supported and had professional development for their roles.

People felt safe and staff knew how to report any concerns about people’s safety. There were systems in place to respond to and learn from any incidents, comments or complaints, and a development plan to improve the service.