This inspection took place on 26 October 2017 and was unannounced.

Penrith Drive provides accommodation and personal care to up to six people with learning disabilities.

At the time of our inspection the provider confirmed they were providing personal care to 6 people

At the last inspection in September 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 continued to receive safe care. Staff were recruited appropriately and there were enough staff at the home to meet the needs of the people living at the service. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff were well supported by the management team with supervision, training and on-going professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were able to choose what they wanted to eat, and received the support they required within this area. People had access to healthcare professionals as required.

People were well cared for and were treated with dignity and respect. We saw that care plans had been written in a personalised manner and enabled staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people's personal preferences. People’s relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The service was well run and had an open culture. Staff told us that they had confidence in the management team and their ability to provide quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home.

The inspection took place on 30 September 2015 and was unannounced. The service is based in a residential area of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and provides care for up to six people who have complex learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection six people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

The staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and of the safeguarding procedures to follow should they need to report any abuse.

Risks were appropriately managed to ensure that people were supported to make choices and take risks.

Staff had been recruited following safe and robust procedures and there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Systems were in place to monitor accidents and incidents so that preventative action could be taken to reduce the number of occurrences.

Robust arrangements were in place for the safe administration and management of medicines.

Staff had the skills and knowledge needed to support people appropriately and had regular training updates to maintain their skills. A programme of staff supervision and annual appraisals enabled the staff to reflect on their work practice and plan their learning and development needs.

People’s consent was sought before providing their care. People who lacked the capacity to make decisions were supported following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People benefitted from having a balanced and varied diet. Their dietary needs were monitored and advice was sought from appropriate health professionals when needed.

People had regular access to healthcare professionals and were supported to attend health appointments.

The staff treated people with kindness and compassion, dignity and respect.

People had individualised and detailed care plans in place, which reflected their needs and choices on how they wanted their care and support to be provided.

Social, leisure and purposeful activities were provided for people to meet their individual needs and aspirations.

People and their representatives were encouraged to provide feedback on the service; complaints were taken seriously and responded to immediately.

We received positive feedback from health and social care professionals involved in monitoring people’s care at the service.

The service was led by a registered manager who continually strived to provide a good quality service. The vision and values were person-centred. People and their representatives were supported to be involved and in control of their care.

Effective management systems were in place to continually monitor the quality of the service.

Our inspection was carried out by one inspector who visited the service unannounced. During the inspection we sought answers to 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:-

Due to the nature of their disabilities, people living in the home were not able to tell us about their experiences. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. A relative of one person told us that they had no concerns about the safety of their relation.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place which identified any specific risks for people who used the service and the actions staff should take to minimise the risk. Staff were knowledgeable about the needs and risks for each person who used the service, and the actions they should take to reduce the risk.

Medication was well managed. However we found there were no records to confirm that the pharmacist and GP had been consulted about one person’s prescribed medication being given on a spoon with jam. The manager confirmed that they would follow this up to ensure the prescribed medication did not interact with jam.

Staff received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and this was discussed at staff meetings. This helped to make sure that staff were aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding people who used the service.

The recruitment of new staff involved obtaining references and carrying out checks to help make sure that people were not put at risk.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed and plans of care developed according to their needs. Information about how people communicated their needs and wishes was clearly identified in care plans which helped ensure that new staff were able to provide appropriate care.

When we spoke with staff, we concluded that they had a good knowledge of each person's care needs and preferences because they were able to tell us about the support people needed, and how they delivered their care. Staff were able to tell us about specific risks such as the risk of pressure ulcers and showed us the equipment and checks in place which helped reduce the risk. This meant that people’s care needs were effectively met.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff were calm and organised and gave people time to express their needs through non- verbal signs and gesture. We saw that people who used the service were relaxed in the presence of staff and responded positively to them.

A relative told us that staff were caring and that they knew their relation liked staff through their gestures. They said they would give staff “eleven out of ten” and told us they “were thrilled that their relation was at Penrith Drive”.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that staff were kind and responsive to people’s needs. The daily routine had been arranged according to people’s individual needs and interests. For example, two people were out at a day centre, one person went for a walk with a member of staff before going to a hospital appointment and another was preparing to go out for a beauty treatment. Staff told us that another person had chosen to get up late that morning and staff would assist them with a bath when ready to get up. This meant that staff responded to people’s needs and preferences.

We found that staff understood the importance of obtaining consent from people who used the service. Staff told us that if someone indicated through gesture that they did not want assistance with care and support, they would respect that and return at a later time.

Is the service well-led?

We found that the service was well managed. The registered manager also manages another small home and divides their time between the two services. We found that although the manager was not present when we arrived, staff knew where the manager would be and were able to contact them. Contact details for senior managers were also available to staff. Staff told us that management support was also available out of office hours. This meant that management support was available as and when needed.

Effective systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care. Regular checks on all aspects of the service were carried out by an area manager and where necessary improvements made.

A relative told us that their family member “couldn’t get any better care” and that the care staff were “all lovely and very welcoming”. Another relative told us that they were pleased that the staff “care so well and do so much for him”. Relatives told us they were kept informed of any issues and invited to attend review meetings.

We saw that staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. Staff understood how people communicated their needs and responded to their requests. People were encouraged to make choices in their daily lives.

People were relaxed and happy with the staff supporting them. Care staff were patient and respectful with the people who lived in the home.

We looked at a sample of care plans. These were very detailed and provided staff with the information they required to meet people's needs. Plans included details of people's personal care and support needs and how they communicated. There was also information about people’s health needs, their likes, and dislikes and relevant risk assessments.

Care staff were well trained and supported. Several had worked at Penrith Drive for a number of years and told us how much they enjoyed their work.

We met five of the six people living at the home. Several had complex communication needs which meant they were not able to speak with us about the care they received. One person told us they liked the home. We saw that staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. Staff understood how people communicated their needs and responded to their requests. People were relaxed and happy with the staff supporting them.

We looked at a sample of care plans. These were very detailed and provided staff with the information they required to meet people's needs. Plans included details of people's personal care and support, health needs, risk assessments and people's likes and dislikes.

One relative told us that their relative was "so well looked after" and that it was "the best home they'd ever been in" and that "their key worker was marvellous"

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and one said that the home was the "best environment they had worked in" and that "everyone was caring and understanding".