We inspected the service on 11 October 2018. The inspection was unannounced. RNIB Stan Bell Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Not everyone living at the RNIB Stan Bell Centre received a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection it was confirmed that thirteen people using the service received 'personal care’.

There was a registered manager in post. The 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 Stan Bell Centre provides residential care and support for people attending the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) college in Loughborough and the service is only provided during college term times. The care service had not originally been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The service did not meet this guidance because they were registered to accommodate more than six people. However, they did meet the values which included choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. People were given choices and their independence and participation within the local community encouraged.

There was a high level of understanding of the need to make sure people were safe. People who used the service, their relatives and staff were actively encouraged to raise their concerns and to challenge if they felt people’s safety was at risk. Staff understood their responsibilities and took action to reduce risk while also respecting people’s human rights and freedom. The service actively sought out new technology and solutions to make sure that people had as few restrictions as possible. There were enough staff who had been recruited safely to deliver care and support. There was a consistent care team, and each person had a named keyworker. Staff had time to spend with people and had built positive relationships.

People were supported to maintain good health. This included access to healthcare professionals, eating and drinking enough, and support with their medicines. People were supported to take their medicines safely and encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Staff had the skills and support to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported through regular supervisions and appraisals. Staff spoke very positively about the leadership and the open and positive culture of the service, and felt well supported by the registered manager.

Everyone we spoke with told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Staff supported people to maintain independent lives, and people told us their privacy and dignity was protected.

People’s care and support was planned proactively in partnership with them. Staff used innovative and individual ways of involving people so that they felt listened to and valued.

Complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve. People knew how to, and felt confident making a complaint.

There were effective governance systems in place to ensure quality of care was monitored and improved. These included actively engaging with people, their relatives and staff, and took their views and experience into account. People felt they were listened to and their contributions were valued. People