This inspection was carried out on 9 March 2017 and was unannounced. The previous inspection on 3 and 4 March 2016 found some regulations were not met and improvement was required. At this inspection improvement had been made.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have learning disabilities, including autism and some complex and challenging behavioural needs.

Accommodation is provided in a detached house in a quiet residential area of New Romney, close to public transport, local amenities and shops. Accommodation is arranged over two floors and each person had their own bedroom. Seabreezes has a spacious enclosed back garden. At the time of the inspection there were six people living at the service and receiving support.

The service had a registered manager, who was not available during the inspection; however a senior support worker and the regional manager were. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received their medicines safely and when they needed them. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe administration of medicines and staff had been trained to administer medicines safely. Medicine audits were regularly carried out by the registered manager and team leaders.

People told us they felt safe and observations showed that staff knew people well and understood their communication needs. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse, and they knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of financial abuse. Risks to people's safety had been assessed and measures put in place to manage any hazards identified. The premises were maintained and checked to help ensure the safety of people, staff and visitors.

There were enough staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. Staff received the appropriate training to fulfil their role and provide the appropriate support. Staff were supported by a management team who they saw on a regular basis. Staff worked well as a team and felt supported by one another. Recruitment practices were safe, checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care services. People living at the service were under constant supervision from staff to keep them safe, therefore DoLS requirements applied; and all required applications for DoLS authorisations had been made.

The registered manager and the management team understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments and decisions made in people's best interest were recorded. People were asked their consent before any care or support was given.

People were treated with kindness and respect. People's needs had been assessed to identify the care they required. People's individual care and support plans were person centred and gave staff the information and guidance they required to give people the right support. Detailed guidance was available for staff to follow to support people who displayed any behaviour which caused a risk to themselves or others. People had clear communication plans and guidance in place to ensure staff were able to communicate effectively with them.

People were supported to remain as healthy as possible with regular access to healthcare professionals. Detailed guidance was provided to staff about how to meet people's needs including any specialist support needs. Staff ensured people were able to maintain contact with those who mattered

We undertook an unannounced inspection of this service on 3 and 4 March 2016. The previous inspection took place on 17 December 2013 and found there were no breaches in the legal requirements at that time.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have learning disabilities, including autism and some complex and challenging behavioural needs.

Accommodation is provided in a detached house in a quiet residential area of New Romney, close to public transport and local amenities and shops. Accommodation is arranged over two floors and each person had their own bedroom. The home benefitted from an enclosed back garden.

This service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is 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.

At the time of inspection five people lived at the service and we were able to meet and speak with each person. People told us that they liked living in the home, they were happy, they liked the staff and the staff were kind. They thought the home provided a relaxed and comfortable living environment.

To help us understand the experiences of people did not readily communicate with us or preferred not to, we observed their responses to the daily events going on around them, their interaction with each other and with staff.

Our inspection found that whilst the service offered people a homely environment and their care needs were being supported; there were shortfalls in some areas that required improvement.

Arrangements to ensure sufficient staff were always on duty in instances of short notice absence were not always responsive enough. A recent instance meant there were insufficient staff to meet people’s needs and address the possibility of behaviour that challenged; this resulted in a member of staff being injured.

The condition, décor and flooring in one bedroom meant it could not be effectively cleaned. This presented an infection control risk.

The service had not notified us of a recent event which they were legally obliged to.

The service had access to the local authority safeguarding protocols, and incidents that warranted referrals to the authority were made.

Medicines were safely administered and stored. Checks ensured sufficient medicines were ordered, the right amount was given and that people received the right medicines when they were supposed to.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. People’s goals and wishes were progressed to encourage development of learning and exploring new activities and challenges. People told us that they felt safe in the service and when they were out with staff.

Authorisations and decisions, made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to deprive people of their liberty, were notified to the Care Quality Commission when they needed to be.

All staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards, they understood in what circumstances a person may need to be referred and when there was a need for best interest meetings to take place. Advocacy services were made available to people.

People had personalised records detailing their care and support, including well developed support plans for their emotional and behavioural needs. People were supported to access routine and specialist health care appointments. People told us staff showed concern when they were unwell and took appropriate action.

People felt comfortable in complaining, but did not have any concerns. People, relatives and visiting professionals had opportunities to provide feedback about the service provided both informally and formally. Feedback received had been positive.

People felt the service was well-led. The registe

Seabreezes on the day of our visit was home to six people with varying support needs. All but one of the people were fully mobile and one who had recently returned from hospital who needed much greater support with the use of a hoist. The majority of people who lived at Seabreezes lead very active lives. Staff were seen to be very informed about the people in their care and communicated with each as individuals and with respect. One person who uses the service said, 'they look after me well and I am going out on my own after lunch'. Another told us they had been cart riding in the morning and had come home for lunch. Another who was not able to speak to us was in their room most of the visit but made several visits to see where we were and what we were doing.

Seabreezes had a very relaxed atmosphere and staff and people using the service appeared comfortable with each other. Staff spoken with were well informed about their role and confident in how they would manage any issues arising unexpectedly. One person spoken with showed a very good understanding of safeguarding issues and felt able to manage any situation that might have arisen. They were fully informed of the company policy and that of the local authority. They told us they were very happy at Seabreezes and had worked there many years. The staff team appeared to be very settled making the home a consistent and stable environment for those using the service.

Five people were living at the home at the time of the inspection. Some people were unable to talk to us directly about their experiences due to their complex needs, so we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. We spoke with staff on duty, read records and observed some of the support that people were given.

People made choices about their daily lives and things that were important to them. They chose what to eat, what to do and how to spend their time each day. They made decisions such as where to go on holiday and whether or not to have a key to their room. People said they liked their rooms and liked the staff. A person said “It is better than where I have lived before” and “I have mates here and I have money”. They also said “I have my own routine, I am used to it”.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They understood people’s needs and preferred methods of communication. People’s health care needs were well met and they were supported to keep in contact with health care professionals.

People had information about who to speak with if they had concerns, processes were in place to make sure that concerns they were listened to and taken seriously.

There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and in the ways they preferred. Staff received the training they needed for their roles. The organisation had processes in place to regularly check on the quality of the service people received.