This inspection took place on the 22 December and 4 January 2017 and was unannounced.

The home provides care and support for people with learning and physical disabilities who have limited communication. At the time of our inspection there were 5 people living there.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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. There was a manager in post who had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager.

People received support and care from staff that were friendly, kind and respected them as individuals. Staff had taken time to understand peoples likes and dislikes, and enabled people to participate in activities either on an individual basis or within groups. This was evident in the way staff spoke to people and the activities they encouraged people to take part in. Relatives spoke positively about the care and support their relative was receiving and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

There were appropriate recruitment processes in place which ensured that people were supported by staff that were suitable to work at the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and knew how to respond if they had any concerns. There was enough staff deployed to support the individual needs of people.

People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided. Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day to day routines and were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

Staff were supported through supervisions and undertook training which focussed on helping them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. People’s health care and nutritional needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

The registered manager was approachable and open to feedback; actively enabling staff to look at ways to improve and develop the service. There were a variety of audits in place to ensure people were receiving a good service and action was taken to address any shortfalls.

This inspection took place on the 15 January 2016 and was unannounced.

The home provides care and support for people with learning and physical disabilities who had limited communication. At the time of our inspection there were 4 people living there.

At the time of the inspection there was no 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. There was a manager in post who was in the process of applying to become the registered manager.

The risk assessments in place to help mitigate any risks to people were not all as person-centered as they needed to be and needed to be more regularly updated to meet the changing needs of people that used the service. Although people’s needs were assessed prior to coming to the home, more account needed to be taken of the environment to ensure that any specialist equipment needed to support people could be more effectively used.

There were appropriate recruitment processes in place. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and knew how to respond if they had any concerns. There was enough staff deployed to support the individual needs of people.

Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training which focussed on helping them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided. Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day to day routines. People’s health care and nutritional needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

People received support and care from staff that were friendly, kind and respected them as individuals. Staff had taken time to understand peoples likes, dislikes and enabled people to participate in activities either on an individual basis or within groups. This was evident in the way staff spoke to people and the activities they encouraged and supported individuals with. Relatives spoke positively about the care and support their relative was receiving and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

The manager was approachable and open to feedback; actively enabling staff to look at ways to improve and develop the service. There were a variety of audits in place to ensure people were receiving a good service and action was taken to address any shortfalls.

During our inspection of 1-2 St Albans Close we set out to answer our five 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. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. The provider had recruitment systems in place to make sure all staff had appropriate checks before starting work at the service. The provider had completed a detailed fire safety risk assessment of the home and staff had a good knowledge of the evacuation procedures in the event of a fire. There were sufficient numbers of suitably experienced and trained staff working at the home at all times.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People told us they were happy living at the home and we observed that people were relaxed and looked well cared for. We saw that individualised care plans had been put in place to ensure people’s health and wellbeing. We saw that people had been supported by the staff to attend a range of health and medical appointments.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed that staff cared for people in a respectful and sensitive manner. The living area of the home had recently been re-decorated. Staff showed us how they were making the environment more ‘homely’ by displaying framed photographs of people who used services in the dining area. People told us that they were happy at the home. One person said “I feel great and I’m good, I’ve just had some tea and toast”.

Is the service responsive?

We observed that staff were responsive to people at the home and provided care to a range of their individual needs. The provider had undertaken a survey in order to find out whether people were happy with the care provided by the service and had taken appropriate action to make improvements to the service where required.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service which was to provide good quality care and that there were quality assurance processes in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times. The registered manager was said to be a caring person who expected high standards of care to be maintained. Staff told us that they had regular supervisions with the registered manager and had received positive feedback about their work performance. The provider had a “speak out safely” helpline in place so staff could report any concerns about people or the home to the provider.

The provider had recently appointed a new manager and they were in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission to be the new registered manager of the home.

We spoke with four people living at the home, three members of staff and the new manager. We also reviewed the care records of three people and used our observation skills to find out what it was like to live at the home.

The people we spoke with told us that they were happy living at the home. We also observed that staff spoke with people in a friendly and pleasant manner and understood their care needs. One person told us that they enjoyed having their independence and liked keeping their room clean and tidy.

We found that people received their medication in a safe way and that when people did not have the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision had been made appropriately. We also found that people were supported by the staff to say if they had any complaints about the service. However, we had some concerns that care planning documents had not been regularly reviewed and that staff had not received a recent supervision with their manager.

We spoke with three people living at the home. They all told us that they were happy living at 1-2 St. Albans Close. One person told us that the home was a “nice place to live”. They told us that the people living at the home had regular meetings with staff, so they could plan the following week’s meals and activities. They also told us that they had enjoyed going to watch the football at the weekend, and that the staff supported them to do this.

One person told us that they had been involved in planning their own care. They explained to us the information recorded in their care plan about daily routines and activities that they liked to do. They also told us that the staff had supported them to live independently and were respectful of their likes and dislikes.

There were five people living at the service when we visited on 6 January 2012. We spoke with two members of staff to ask for their comments and observations. We spent some time in communal areas of the home with two residents, observing their experience of care and assessing the quality of support they received.