This inspection took place on 15 November 2016 and was announced.

We last inspected the service on 3 July 2013 and found they were meeting all the regulations we inspected.

Segensworth Road provides care, support and accommodation for up to three people who have learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were two people living at the home.

The registered manager no longer worked at the service and was in the process of deregistering. A new manager was in post. He was in the process of applying to be registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. We were supported by the regional manager, manager and senior support worker throughout the inspection.

The person with whom we spoke told us they felt safe at the service. There was no ongoing safeguarding concerns. Medicines were administered safely.

Checks were carried out to ensure that applicants were suitable to work with vulnerable people. This included obtaining written references and a Disclosure and Barring Service check [DBS]. There were sufficient staff deployed and we saw that staff carried out their duties in a calm unhurried manner.

Staff told us, and records confirmed that training was available. There was an appraisal and supervision system in place. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s nutritional needs were met and they had access to a range of healthcare services.

Staff were motivated and demonstrated a clear commitment to providing dignified and compassionate care and support.

The arrangements for social activities were inclusive and met people’s individual needs. The service had their own ‘house car’ which was available to use at any time.

People were actively encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints. There was a complaints procedure in place and pictures had been added to make the words easier to understand. No complaints or concerns had been received.

Audits and checks were carried out to monitor all aspects of the service. An action plan was developed to highlight any areas which required improving. The provider used a traffic light scoring system to rate their services. Segensworth Road’s overall grading was green which meant they were meeting the provider’s assessed standards.

Staff were very positive about working for the provider. They said they felt valued and enjoyed working at the home. We observed that this positivity was reflected in the care and support which staff provided.

The provider had arranged for a manager who is registered with the Commission in respect of another Community Integrated Care home to provide temporary management cover for this service. They will be referred to in this report as the manager, but they were not the registered manager of this home.

During our inspection we spoke to two staff and the regional manager who was based in the service because the manager was not available. We met both the people living in the home; due to their disability and communication needs we were not able to ascertain their views verbally. However, we saw that they looked happy and well cared for. We observed staff interacting with them in a friendly, relaxed manner and also treating them with respect.

We saw that there had been extensive improvements in the home with regard to care planning and staffing levels. Staff told us that things were much better as a result of the improvements and people were busier, going out more and happier as a result.

The provider had arranged for a manager who is registered with the Commission in respect of another Community Integrated Care home to provide temporary management cover for this service. They will be referred to in this report as the manager, but they were not the registered manager of this home.

We found that there were some improvements in the home for example, the environment had improved and mental capacity assessments had been carried out for people. Some areas remained non-compliant and in the case of outcome 13, Staffing, the Warning Notice had not been met in full so further action will be taken by us.

People in the home had limited verbal communication skills. As a result of this we spent time observing the care people received and spoke to care staff. One relative was spoken with who told us they thought their relative was receiving a good service.

People were not involved in making decisions regarding their care. Staff did not always treat people with consideration or respect.

From records held we were not able to establish whether people’s mental capacity had been assessed to ensure they were able to make decisions and included in the making of decisions regarding their care and treatment.

Assessments and support plans had not always been carried out and did not include all the information staff would need to support the person effectively.

The home was clean and had a homely environment in all communal rooms. One person’s bedroom had not been personalised. The seating arrangements in the lounge were not suitable for one of the people currently using the service.

The home did not have adequate staffing numbers on duty and not all staff were adequately skilled and experienced to support the people in the home

Staff had not received all the training they needed to be able to support people. All staff had not received regular support in the form of supervision sessions.

We did not, on this occasion, seek the views of people using the service.