SENSE- 37 Redgate Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a learning disability who also have difficulties with hearing and seeing. The provider is not registered to provide nursing care at the service. The service is a domestic-style dwelling and is situated in a residential suburb of the city of Peterborough. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the service.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 17 October 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 20 October 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found overall the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

Potential risks to people continued to be assessed and minimised. Staff understood their responsibility to protect people from avoidable harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and staff recruitment ensured that only staff suitable to work at this service were employed. Medicines continue to be managed safely and people receive their medicines as prescribed.

Staff continued to receive an induction programme, training and support to ensure they are able to do their job well. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People's nutritional needs were met and people were supported to have enough to eat and drink. There continued to be a range of healthcare professionals that visit the service to support the people to maintain good health.

Staff showed they genuinely cared about the people they were looking after. Staff treated people with kindness. They respected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as they could be.

Care plans were person centred and gave staff guidance on the care each person needed. A wide range of activities were provided and people were encouraged to follow their own interests. People knew who to speak to if they were not happy with the service and were confident their complaints would be addressed.

There was a registered manager in post who was approachable, supportive and provided good leadership. People, staff and visitors to the service were encouraged to put forward their views about the service being provided. The quality of the care was monitored by a range of audits that were carried out regularly.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

SENSE- 37 Redgate Court is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a learning disability and who also have difficulties with hearing and seeing. The provider is not registered to provide nursing care at the home. The home is a domestic-style dwelling and is situated in a residential suburb of the city of Peterborough. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 20 October 2015 and was announced. The last inspection of the home was carried out on 25 June 2014 when the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations that we assessed.

A registered manager was in not post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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. The last registered manager applied to have their registration removed and their application was approved on 7 August 2015. There was a manager in post who had submitted their application to be registered.

People were safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were judged to be suitable to look after people who used the service. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also supported to access a range of health care services and their individual health needs were met.

People’s rights in making decisions and suggestions in relation to their support and care were valued and acted on.

People were supported by staff who were trained and supported to do their job.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. The provider was following the MCA code of practice and made sure that the rights of people who lacked mental capacity to take particular decisions were protected. Decisions about depriving people of their liberty were made in their best interest so that they had the care and treatment they needed.

People were treated by respectful staff who promoted and supported them to maintain their independence.

People’s care was reviewed with the person and their representative. There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints would be listened to and acted on.

The manager was supported by a senior management team and care staff. Staff were supported and managed to look after people in a safe way. Staff, people and their relatives were enabled to make suggestions about the running of the home. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action had been taken where improvements were identified.

An adult social care inspector carried out this this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with one of the people who used the service, spoke with three family members of people who used the service, the registered manager and a member of staff. We also carried out observations, reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included three care plans, daily records, policies and procedures, staff records and quality assurance monitoring records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

Family members of people who used the service told us that they were satisfied with how their relatives’ support and care needs had been safely met. They also told us that they felt satisfied that their relative was safe, living at the care home.

Health and safety risk assessments had been carried out and measures were in place to minimise these, to keep people safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. Applications had been made and work was in progress to submit these to the approved authorities. Appropriate policies and procedures were in place and under review. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

People were protected from the risk of harm because the equipment was maintained and safe for people to use.

There were recruitment systems in place that ensured people were kept safe, because they were looked after by suitable staff.

Is the service effective?

People’s choices and decisions about their support and care were respected and valued.

People who used the service indicated that they were satisfied with the how their support and care needs were being met. Family members of people who used the service also had very positive comments to make regarding the standard and quality of their relatives’ support and care. They also noted that this had enabled people to improve their level of independence and abilities to communicate with others.

Procedures were in place to ensure that where people may not have had the mental capacity to understand complex information, their health and social care needs would be met in their best interests.

People were provided with effective support and care that enabled them to be part of the community.

Is the service caring?

We observed a member of staff and found that they treated the person they were looking after in a kind and attentive way. Family members of people who used the service told us that members of staff were very kind and caring.

People’s independence was promoted and maintained.

We found that people who used the service were supported to engage in meaningful activities. This enabled people to improve and maintain their sense of well-being.

People positively responded to members of staff. This included becoming settled with showing signs of being content.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs, choices and personal preferences had been assessed and planned for. Members of staff demonstrated to us how they respected people’s choices and decisions about their support and care.

People’s individual social and health care needs were responded to. People were supported to maintain contact with health care professionals, friends and family members, when this support was needed.

Is the service well-led?

Members of staff told us that they had the training and support to safely do their job, which they said they enjoyed.

Opportunities were made available for people who used the service, their relatives and staff members, to make suggestions and comments to improve the quality of people’s support and care.

A relative of one of the people who used the service said that they believed that the current registered manager was, “The best manager (SENSE) 37 Redgate Court has had.”

Although we did not speak with people during this visit, we did speak with people when we visited in November 2012. While we were at the home, we observed staff supporting people to eat and drink and prepare one person to go to a health appointment. Staff were relaxed, supportive and very attentive to the individual needs of people who lived at the home.

We checked and found that the care plans and risk assessments for people at the service were up to date, detailed their individual needs and promoted their choice and independence.

We checked that people were given the opportunity to share their views and feedback about the service at 37 Redgate Court. We found that improvements had been made to ensure that staff, visitors, relatives and people who used the service were being given more opportunities to comment about the quality of the service and their comments were being taken into account by the provider.

We found that people who used the service had good access to activities. One person said they wanted to,” Live here forever.” and the manager was,” Nice and kind.” We observed that staff understood the needs of people at the service and had formed good relationships with them.

People who used the service were involved in six monthly reviews of their progress which included the care and support they received. However, care plans and risk assessments were not always reviewed on a regular basis. This meant that staff could not always ensure the welfare and safety of people who used the service.

A problem with a number of cracks to some walls and floors of the building had been identified on our previous visit in January 2012. We found the provider had been working with the landlords to ensure the safety of the building and maintain a suitable environment for people. Overall the premises were well maintained and appropriate for use.

On the day of our visit we found that there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs. Staff told us they always had enough staff with the relevant experience to meet the care and support needs of the people who lived there.

People who use the service were not regularly asked for their views about the care and treatment at the service so that improvements could be made. Some quality checks that had been completed did not have clear recommendations so that staff could take action for improvements.

One person we spoke with told us that that they were very happy living in the home and felt well supported by the staff. Other people did not share their opinions with us about the care and support provided but observations made during the visit showed that there was a kind and sensitive rapport between people and staff.