This inspection took place on 30 April 2018 and 2 May. It was an announced visit to the service. This was the first inspection since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

This service provides care and support to people living in four ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of our inspection 19 people with a range of physical and learning disabilities were being supported.

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.

We received positive feedback from people, their relatives and staff on how the service was led. Comments included “Brilliant management, they are all absolutely fantastic; they have really made me feel comfortable.” A relative told us “I am very grateful to [Name of registered manager] and her staff for their patience and kindness to both [Name of person] and my family.”

Providers and registered managers are required to notify us of certain incidents or events which have occurred during, or as a result of, the provision of care and support to people. One notifiable event is when abuse is suspected. The provider had notified the local authority of suspected abusive situations; however they did not notify CQC.

Providers have a requirement to be open and transparent when things go wrong. We call this duty of candour. When certain events happened there are a number of actions providers should take. This includes making an apology to the person or their legal representative. The provider was unaware of the requirements. However it responded quickly once this was discussed with them.

The provider had processes in place to undertake pre-employment checks on staff to ensure they were suitable to work with people. However some staff were working in the service without a full police clearance. The provider did not allow the staff to work unattended until a full police clearance was received. We were assured provisions were in place to protect people during this time.

Staff were supported to develop their skills and knowledge through training. However there had been a delay in some of the required training to ensure people received safe care. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

Staff were aware of the need to report any incidents and accidents. However no analysis was carried out to identify any trends or learning to prevent a future similar event. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were supported by staff that had developed a good working relationship with them. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes.

People were supported to engage in meaningful activities and keep in contact with family and friends.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.