About the service: Rutland House Community Trust is a residential care home that was providing personal and care for 10 people living with physical or learning disability at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿People were supported to have the 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.

¿There were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to support people to be safe and to spend their time the way they wanted to. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

¿ Staff supported people to have their medicines at the right times and to access health services when they needed to.

¿ People had a choice of healthy food and were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People with special dietary requirements had those needs met.

¿Staff were caring and supported people in ways to make people feel they mattered to them. Staff respected people’s privacy. People were involved in decisions about their care and support.

¿ Staff supported people to participate in activities and to follow their interests and hobbies.

¿ People and relatives knew how to raise concerns if they had any and they were confident they would be listened to.

¿ The provider sought people’s views and feedback about the service and acted on what they said.

¿ The service was well-led; management and staff shared the same vision to deliver high quality care and support. The provider had effective arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service and was committed to continuous improvement.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection we rated the service Good (Report published 17 August 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection to check that the service remained Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall and had improved from Requires Improvement to Good in the key question Effective.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

We inspected the service on 11 July 2016. It was an unannounced inspection.

Rutland House Community Trust provides accommodation for up to 10 people with learning difficulties and sensory impairments. The home is also sometimes referred to as Willowbrook. There were 10 people using the service on the day of our inspection.

The person who was the registered manager had left the service. 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 current manager intends to apply to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager.

People were protected from harm and staff were clear of their role to keep people safe and protect them from abuse. People told us they felt safe. There was a recruitment policy in place which the manager followed. We found that all the required pre-employment checks were being carried out before staff commenced work at the service.

Risks associated with people’s care were assessed and managed to protect people from harm. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who used the service. People received their medicines as required and medicines were managed and administered safely.

People were supported to make decisions about the care they received. People’s opinions were sought and respected. The provider had considered their responsibility to meet the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). However we found that the way that mental capacity assessments were recorded was not in line with the MCA. The manager was clear of their role in ensuring decisions were made in people’s best interest.

Nutritious meals were provided and where people had dietary requirements, these were met.

Systems were in place to monitor the health and wellbeing of people who used the service. People’s health needs were met and when necessary, outside health professionals were contacted for support.

Staff had a clear understanding of their role and how to support people who used the service as individuals. Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and compassion. People’s dignity was maintained and promoted.

People’s independence was promoted and staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported to follow their interests and engage in activities. We observed times of inactivity for some people. Staff told us that there were times when more activities could be promoted.

Staff felt supported by the manager. The manager supervised staff and regularly checked their competency to carry out their role. People who used the service felt they could talk to the manager and were confident that they would address issues if required. Relatives found the manager to be approachable.

There were a range of audit systems in place to measure the quality and care delivered so that improvements could be made.

We spoke with two people who used the service. They told us they received the care and support they required and liked the staff. One person said “I love it here". We saw that people who used the service were relaxed and at ease when interacting with staff. Staff were extremely knowledgeable about people’s individual needs. Staff were enthusiastic and motivated. They felt supported and told us they had received all the training they required.

People received a well balanced and nutritious diet. Staff knew about healthy eating and encouraged people to make healthy choices. Appropriate referrals were made to healthcare professional where risk was identified.

There were robust systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision. This included seeking the views of people who used the service. Risk was assessed and managed appropriately.

We spoke with one person who used the service. They told us they liked living at Willowbrook. They said they liked the staff and all the activities they took part in. We observed people who used the service interacting with staff. Staff were friendly, helpful and professional. Staff offered people choice about the things they did and encouraged people to be as independent as possible. People were asked for their feedback about the way the service was run.

Because some people living at Willowbrook experienced communication difficulties, we were unable to ask some people direct questions about the care they received. People we were able to speak with were satisfied with the service provided.