The inspection took place on 5 July 2017 and was announced. The provider was given notice because the location provides domiciliary care services and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. We visited people in their own homes on 11 July 2017 and contacted people who used the service and staff via telephone on 14 July 2017 to ask their views.

PIPS Office registered with CQC in May 2016 and this was the first inspection of the service. The service is based in Stokesley and provides supported living services to people in the Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, East Cleveland and York areas. At the time of this inspection the service was providing support to 15 people, most of whom had autism and/or learning disabilities. The nominated individual and registered manager where present throughout the inspection.

The service 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.

Recruitment procedures had been followed to ensure staff were safe to work and did not pose a potential risk to people who used the service. Interviews were recorded and records showed that the provider ensured new staff were suitable for the role before an offer of employment was made.

Medicines were managed and stored safely. When people required their medicines to be administered by staff, appropriate documentation and risk assessments were in place. Medicines records contacted accurate information which reflected people’s current medicine needs. Records showed that medicines had been administered as prescribed.

A safeguarding policy was in place to protect people from the risk of harm. All staff we spoke with were aware of the procedure to follow if they suspected abuse was taking place. Safeguarding concerns had been managed appropriately.

Risk assessments had been developed and were in place for people who needed them. The service promoted positive risk taking and risk assessments recorded how this was to be managed safely. People were not restricted and their independence was promoted. Risk assessments had been regularly updated to reflect people’s current needs.

People told us they trusted staff and felt part of the service. They were able to transition to the service over a period of time which helped people to build relationships with staff before they began receiving support.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were aware of the procedure to follow if they suspected a person lacked capacity to make decisions.

There was a process for completing and recording staff supervisions and competency assessments. Systems in place ensured staff received the training and experience they required to carry out their roles. They completed an induction process with the provider and shadowed more experienced staff until they built relationships with people. A range of training was provided to ensure staff were able to effectively carry out their roles.

Some people were supported by staff with meal preparation and where possible people’s independence was promoted in this area. Records and people confirmed that they were given choice and were able to make independent decisions about what they had to eat and drink.

People were supported by a regular team of staff who knew their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff had the knowledge of people’s personal histories and medical conditions and had been involved in implementing and developing support plans to meet people’s needs. Support plans were reviewed on a monthly basis to ensure they continued to meet people’s needs.

Care records contained evidence of close working relationships with other professionals to maintain and pro