The unannounced inspection took place on 29 December 2017. At our last inspection in November 2015 the service was rated Good. During this visit the service remains "Good."

Searsons Way is a care home that accommodates four people in one adapted building. 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. On the day of our visit there were four people using the service. One person had gone away with their family and another was on respite care.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

On the day of our visit the registered manager took us around. 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.

People told us they felt safe. There were policies in place to safeguard people from harm. These were understood by staff who were able to demonstrate how they recognised and reported allegations of abuse. Risks to people were assessed and monitored in order to ensure that people were supported safely.

Incidents and accidents were managed safely. There were systems in place to ensure these were reported and analysed in order to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidelines were followed by staff who had received the necessary training.

Recruitment processes remained robust and all the appropriate checks were completed before staff were employed. Sufficient numbers of skilled staff were deployed to ensure people's needs were met safely.

Medicines were managed safely and any anomalies or discrepancies were quickly rectified to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff were supported by means of regular supervision, and annual appraisal. They had a comprehensive induction when they started and received on-going training to ensure they were able to support people effectively. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how they applied it in their role.

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.

The service continued to be caring and responsive to people’s needs. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. Care plans were pictorial, individual and depicted people’s social, physical and emotional needs. A special effort and attention had been made to ensure information was accessible and in format people could understand.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet that met their needs. They were enabled to access health care services when they needed in order to maintain their health.

Complaints were in a format that people could understand and were dealt with promptly.

People and staff continued to say the service was well led. We saw effective quality assurance systems in place.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 November 2015. There service met legal requirements at our last inspection in December 2013.

Searsons Way provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to four young people some of whom have complex learning disabilities including autistic spectrum disorders. On the day of our visit there were four people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager in place who managed this service and the sister service next door. 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.

People told us they felt safe and that staff were kind. We observed that people were treated with dignity and respect and that their privacy was respected. We observed compassionate interactions between staff and people. Staff had attended equality and diversity training and were able to demonstrate how to apply this in practice.

Incidents and accidents were monitored and action was taken to learn and reduce the risk repeat incidents. Risk assessments to the environment and for people were completed to ensure appropriate steps were taken to mitigate the risks.

People told us that there were enough staff to meet their needs including taking people out to places of interest on a daily basis. We checked staff files and found appropriate recruitment checks had been completed to ensure that suitable staff with verifiable references were employed.

Staff were aware of the procedures to follow in response to allegations of abuse, reporting incidents, medical emergencies, fire, safe administration of medicines and had attended appropriate training. Staff were supported by means of regular supervision annual appraisals and regular meetings. In addition continuing professional development by means of gaining diploma in social care qualifications was also supported.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and given choice. Appropriate referrals were made to other healthcare professionals and advice given was followed in order to improve people’s quality of life.

Staff had attended training and were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the need to follow appropriate procedures to ensure that people who lacked capacity to make certain decisions were only deprived of their liberty when it was in their best interests to do so.

Care plans were individualised and explained how to effectively respond to people’s needs. Communication passports, health action plans, triggers to certain behaviours and how to respond were clearly outlined in the care records we reviewed.

People thought the registered manager was approachable and visible. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and the vision and values of the service. There were quality assurance systems in place to ensure the quality of care delivered was monitored.

People's care was planned using a personalised approach. We found that care records and risk assessments were appropriate and up to date. People who used the service appeared happy and settled. Relatives of people who used the service were positive about the care provided. One person said "Staff do all they can to give him a good day." Another relative told us "I never worry about the care he receives."

The provider had policies in place to support the dietary needs of people who used the service. People had access to nutritious food based on their special needs and personal preferences. We found that staff were knowledgeable about ways to support people who used the service to remain healthy through dietary choices.

Support workers were responsible for the cleanliness of the service. We found the service to be clean, tidy and well maintained. The service had up to date infection control policies and training in place. Staff observed good hand hygiene practices and followed appropriate food handling processes to prevent risk of infection.

The provider used effective recruitment processes to select suitable candidates for vacant posts. Appropriate pre-employment checks were conducted to safeguard people who used the service.

Records held by the service about people, staff and management processes were up to date, accurate and stored securely.

We visited this service on 25 February 2013 and looked at the care and treatment records of people who use the service. We observed how people were being cared for and spoke with members of staff and managers. We spoke to people who use services however feedback was limited due to the communication needs of the people who use the service. We also spoke with family members/carers and we spoke with professionals involved in the care of people living at the accommodation.

The family members we spoke with made positive comments about the service and commented that communication between themselves and the provider was "excellent". People told us that they were able to participate in the care planning process and that comments and suggestions they made had been acted upon for example in terms of activities. Professionals we spoke with said that advice and recommendations they had made had been acted upon appropriately by the provider. Health and social care professionals also told us that the provider had contributed appropriately to multi agency meetings when held.