This inspection took place on 24 and 30 August 2016. We gave the service short notice as we needed to be sure people would be there. Some people also had needs on the autistic spectrum and would be able to cope better with an inspection, when made aware of it in advance. The service was last inspected in May 2014 and was compliant with the essential standards inspected.

Parkview is a care home without nursing that provides care for up to nine people with learning difficulties, some of whom also have needs on the autistic spectrum. Twenty four hour support is provided by a regular team of staff.

A registered manager was in place as required in the service. 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.

Relatives and staff felt the service was very well managed and praised the registered manager and her management team. The registered manager was felt to be very accessible and listened to the views of others and acted on them. Staff found the registered manager approachable and felt well supported by the management team. People had very positive relationships with staff and management, which enhanced their day to day experience.

People's rights and freedom were actively protected and promoted by the service. Staff had a good understanding of relevant legislation and supported people’s rights in the course of their work. The environment and grounds had been adapted and developed in response to people's needs. This enabled them to enjoy as much freedom as possible.

Staff worked proactively and responded to people’s needs in a timely way so their anxiety was minimised, and they were very skilled at supporting people to manage their behaviour. Staff recognised the signs or triggers for particular behaviours and offered reassurance or diverted people to something they enjoyed. People’s support was provided based on very detailed care plans and supporting documents, such as risk assessments, which reflected their needs, wishes and aspirations. Support and care were provided in a person-centred way and people's individuality was recognised and valued.

Interactions showed staff and people had positive relationships and were encouraged to make decisions and choices about their daily lives. Staff respected people's dignity and privacy and worked calmly alongside them. We saw numerous instances of warmth and humour between people and staff and lots of smiling and laughter from people in the course of activities and interactions. People accessed a wide range of activities, outings, trips and holidays and were involved in choosing these.

Health care was outstanding. People’s health needs were very effectively monitored and supported. Staff had identified major health concerns and acted promptly to ensure people received the medical tests, care and treatment they needed with due regard for their best interests.

People were kept safe because health and safety issues were effectively monitored, servicing and safety checks were carried out regularly and prompt action was taken to address issues. Staff understood their role in keeping people safe from harm and knew how to recognise and report any concerns about abuse. They were confident management would respond appropriately and act on anything they reported. Where possible, people had also attended training to enhance their awareness of keeping themselves safe.

The service was subject to effective monitoring by the management team and the provider, to ensure standards were maintained. Identified issues were actioned in a timely way. The management team worked to develop and improve the service to ensure people’s changing needs were met. The views of people, families and staff about the service, were

People living in the home had individual communication and behavioural needs and during our visit no one was able to provide their views about their experiences of living in the home. We were told that independence and individuality were promoted within the home. People living there were supported and enabled to do things for themselves. They were encouraged to express their views using their preferred individual communication styles and to participate in making decisions relating to their care and treatment.

We spoke with a member of the local authority contracts and monitoring team who had visited the home within the previous two weeks. They told us that the standard of care was good and that the home was well managed. They had made a small number of minor recommendations in relation to staff appraisals and training.

We looked at a range of records, spoke with the manager, the area manager and all staff on duty, two of whom we spoke with in private. We saw the communal areas of the home, some people’s bedrooms and spent time observing interactions between staff and people living in the home.

People living in the home had individual communication and behavioural needs and the majority were unable to provide their views about their experiences of living in the home. However we saw that people were involved with their care and the running of the home. One person told us that "I have nice people looking after me".

People living in the home had individual communication needs and were unable to provide their views about their experiences of living in the home. However we saw that people were involved with their care and the running of the home. There were house meetings where people were supported to express their views and make requests for things such as meal choices, holidays and activities.

The inspection team who carried out this inspection consisted of one inspector. On the first day of the inspection they visited the home. On the second day of the inspection the inspector did not visit the home but contacted the relatives of people who use the service and health care professionals by telephone. The inspector gathered evidence against the outcomes we reviewed to help answer our five key 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. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what staff told us.

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

Is the service safe?

The provider had risk assessments for aspects of care that posed a risk to people who lived in the home. These assessments helped identify, address and minimise the risks to the individual.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

The provider had appropriate systems in place to effectively assess and monitor the quality of care they provided to people who use the service.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that the home had liaised effectively with the local authority DoLS team.

Is the service effective?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to enable staff to ensure they obtained valid consent from people, where they were able. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Is the service caring?

During the inspection we observed care workers supporting people who use the service. Staff were respectful and caring. Care workers understood how people communicated and how people would express their likes and dislikes during the care planning process.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people’s care records and risk assessments had been recently reviewed and updated. People who use the service, their relatives and health care professionals had been involved as appropriate. If any changes to people’s needs were identified these were made.

Is the service well led?

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment. The provider had a robust quality audit system in place. We saw evidence that when issues had been identified, they were managed appropriately.