This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 11 January 2017.

Parry House is a residential care home which is registered to provide a service for up to eight people with learning disabilities. Some people had other associated difficulties including needing support with behaviours which could be distressing and/or harmful. There were eight people living in the home on the day of the visit, including one person who was in hospital. The service offered accommodation in a purpose built house which provided ground and first floor accommodation.

There is a registered manager running 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.

People were kept as safe as possible from abuse and harm by staff who had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures. The staff team’s knowledge and understanding of how to keep people and themselves safe contributed to ensuring people lived in a safe and secure environment.

People, staff and visitor safety was further enhanced because general risks and risks to individuals were identified and managed. Staffing ratios ensured people were supported safely. The recruitment procedures were robust and made sure, that as far as possible, staff were safe and suitable to work with people. Medicines were given in the right amounts and at the right times by trained and competent staff.

People’s health and well-being needs were met by staff who responded to people’s changing needs. The service sought advice from and worked closely with health and other professionals to ensure they met people’s health and well-being needs.

Peoples’ human and civil rights were understood, and upheld by the staff and registered manager of the service. The service 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. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who may not have capacity to do so. People were supported to make as many decisions and have as much control over their lives as they were able to.

People’s care was provided by kind and caring staff who were knowledgeable. Individualised care planning ensured staff used a person centred approach and people’s equality and diversity was always respected. The service was responsive to people and met their individual needs. People were given the opportunity to participate in a wide variety of activities that met their needs and preferences.

People received good care from a well led service. The registered manager was experienced and qualified and listened and responded to people, staff and others. The registered manager was described as approachable and always supportive. The quality of care the service provided was assessed, reviewed, improved and developed as necessary.

We were welcomed into Parry House and found that it had a friendly, busy atmosphere. People we spent time with were happy to talk to us about their activities, holidays and their families. They told us they liked the people they shared Parry House with and that they all got on well.

We saw that staff knew the people well and spent time with them encouraging them to make choices and promoting their independence.

Lunch time was a social occasion and people were offered a choice of healthy, nutritious food and drink. People’s care plans reflected their needs and we saw that these were met at the meal time.

Staff told us they felt supported. They said the training was “excellent” and one person said “there is always the opportunity to get specialist training if you need it.”

We saw that complaints were well recorded and investigated. Where possible they were resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.

We spoke with four people who use the service and observed interaction between people who lived and worked at the home. We have included our observations in this report.

People we spoke with told us that “staff were kind”. They told us they were treated with respect and were involved in the decisions made about the care and support they received.

People said that they could approach staff if they were worried or concerned.

Parry House provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection eight people were living at the home. The home is one of eight houses run by Purley Park Trust Limited on a site that includes day care facilities for people such as a club house and gardening project.

People told us they were satisfied with the service they received. A relative also told us the care was of a good standard and that the service promoted people’s independence. The relative said: “The freedom and care is beyond everything. My relative is looked after well and is always happy.”

We saw that people were involved in decisions and reviews about their care and leisure needs. Staff were observed to treat people with respect and acknowledged people’s choice as well as their independence.

Records showed that the service liaised with health care providers so that people received appropriate health care checks and treatment where needed. We spoke to two health and social care professionals who told us the service made appropriate referrals to them for any support and treatment for people.

Care records included details about how staff should support people with any behaviour needs and how to communicate with people. We observed staff interacting with people and people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff were observed to deal with any behaviour needs by calmly redirecting people to more positive activities.

There were a number of activities provided for people and we observed people using the nearby club house or relaxing in the lounge. The service also provided activities outside the home.

The service had recently reviewed its staffing levels which had resulted in an increase from three to four staff between the hours of 0700 and 1430 from 21 April 2014. At the time of the inspection there were three staff on duty, which staff said was sufficient to meet people’s needs.

Staff were provided with a range of training which included first aid and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults as well as vocational qualifications such as the Diploma in Health and Social Care and /or the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in care.

Each person had their own bedroom with an en suite bathroom. People were able to maintain their privacy, security and independence by locking their bedroom door unless an assessment identified they were not safe to do this. The premises were well maintained and clean although we noted there were minor decorative defects such as plug holes in walls where shelves had been removed and two en suite bathroom floors were in need of additional cleaning.

The home had a registered manager who was in day to day control of the home.

We saw that people were encouraged to make decisions for themselves. Where people were unable to do this the service considered the person’s capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At the time of the inspection there were no people subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) order.

Parry House provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection eight people were living at the home. The home is one of eight houses run by Purley Park Trust Limited on a site that includes day care facilities for people such as a club house and gardening project.

People told us they were satisfied with the service they received. A relative also told us the care was of a good standard and that the service promoted people’s independence. The relative said: “The freedom and care is beyond everything. My relative is looked after well and is always happy.”

We saw that people were involved in decisions and reviews about their care and leisure needs. Staff were observed to treat people with respect and acknowledged people’s choice as well as their independence.

Records showed that the service liaised with health care providers so that people received appropriate health care checks and treatment where needed. We spoke to two health and social care professionals who told us the service made appropriate referrals to them for any support and treatment for people.

Care records included details about how staff should support people with any behaviour needs and how to communicate with people. We observed staff interacting with people and people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff were observed to deal with any behaviour needs by calmly redirecting people to more positive activities.

There were a number of activities provided for people and we observed people using the nearby club house or relaxing in the lounge. The service also provided activities outside the home.

The service had recently reviewed its staffing levels which had resulted in an increase from three to four staff between the hours of 0700 and 1430 from 21 April 2014. At the time of the inspection there were three staff on duty, which staff said was sufficient to meet people’s needs.

Staff were provided with a range of training which included first aid and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults as well as vocational qualifications such as the Diploma in Health and Social Care and /or the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in care.

Each person had their own bedroom with an en suite bathroom. People were able to maintain their privacy, security and independence by locking their bedroom door unless an assessment identified they were not safe to do this. The premises were well maintained and clean although we noted there were minor decorative defects such as plug holes in walls where shelves had been removed and two en suite bathroom floors were in need of additional cleaning.

The home had a registered manager who was in day to day control of the home.

We saw that people were encouraged to make decisions for themselves. Where people were unable to do this the service considered the person’s capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At the time of the inspection there were no people subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) order.