This inspection took place on 5 and 8 January 2018. It was an unannounced visit to the service.

Seymour House - 21, 23 & 25 Seymour Road is a residential care home for 11 people with a learning disability and or autism. The care home is located across three semi-detached properties in Slough. One of the properties has two annexe buildings in the garden which two people have on- suite bedrooms. The home is within easy walking distance of the local shops. Each property has a mixture of private bedrooms and communal areas.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were supported with their prescribed medicines. We received positive feedback from people about how staff did this safely. However the records relating to medicine management did not always follow safe practice. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who were supported in their role. The service ensured staff with the rights skills and attributes were employed. People told us there was enough staff to support them on a daily basis.

Risks posed to people were identified and systems were in place to minimise the risk of harm to people.

People were supported to achieve their potential and maintain independence living skills. The service regularly monitored changes in people’s health and behaviour to enable them to have a better quality of life.

Where people had expressed an interest in work, the service helped them access support to obtain work. Other people were supported to attend social and support groups.

People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle and diet. People had access to specialist external healthcare professionals when needed.

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.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and the registered manager had a clear vision to help improve people’s experiences.

This inspection took place on 29 October 2015. It was an unannounced visit to the service.

Seymour House is a care home for adults who have a learning disability or autism. It is registered to provide accommodation for nine people. At the time of our inspection seven people lived at Seymour House.

We previously inspected the service on 30 October 2013. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 home had a relaxed atmosphere and staff supported people in a respectful and friendly way. Staff understood the needs of people they supported and independence was encouraged.

People told us they felt at home at Seymour House. They felt safe and had confidence in management to deal with any concerns. Relatives told us they were very happy with the service their family member received. They had confidence that people were supported in a dignified manner.

People who could go out independently did so frequently. People were supported to have meaningful activities, one person attended college another was supported with voluntary work.

Risks to people were clearly documented. Risk assessments were comprehensive and reviewed at regular intervals. Staff were knowledgeable on actions to mitigate risk.

Medicines were managed in safe way. There was clear guidance about the use of medicines prescribed for occasional use. This meant that staff were consistent in when these medicines were administered to people.

Staff had a good understanding of what constitutes abuse. People using the service had access to information on how to raise concerns about safety.

Staff had a good understanding of the implications for them and their practice of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make specific decisions at a given time. DoLS provides a process by which a person can be deprived of their liberty when they do not have the capacity to make certain decisions and there is no other way to look after them safely.

The service was managed well. The registered manager supported staff to develop themselves and the service. Each staff member had a role within the home.

We have made a recommendation about staff training on the subject of manual handling.

We have made a recommendation about supporting all staff in particular one to one meetings and annual appraisals.

The people we met were happy and said they felt well looked after; people were relaxed and told us they enjoyed living at the home. These people also told us that they regularly went out on shopping trips, out to the cinema and attended a variety of local social clubs of their choice. We looked at a range of people’s weekly activity plans and we noted that a broad range of weekday, evenings and weekend activities were promoted. We spoke with one person who told us, “I like it here, and I enjoy the trips out and being able to go to the shops.”

We spoke with two care staff who told us that they supported people to be as independent as possible and helped them to work towards and achieve personal leisure activities or social goals. We looked at a range of care files that demonstrated the personalised approach that was in place and this supported comment made by the staff. We observed that the manager operated a model of good practice by offering staff regular supervision and access to a framework of training and support that enabled them to provide a high quality of care.

We spoke with one parent who told us that they were happy with the service provided and that they felt the staff were friendly and always behaved in a professional manner. This person told us they had been made aware of the complaints procedure but that they had never had cause needed to use it.

We observed staff treating people with respect and were able to see that there was a good relationship between staff and people who used the service. We observed staff assessing people’s needs and ensuring that care was provided in line with individual care plans. We were able to see that people were comfortable and that there was adequate numbers of staff available to provide the individualised support needed.

We asked people if they were able to go out when they wanted to. They told us they could go into Slough and walk to the local high street when they wanted. One person said they went out on their own and had an agreement with staff with regard to the time they returned. That enabled them to be more independent. One person said they liked to go out to the cinema and theatre. They said they liked knitting and looking at the newspapers. We were told the house had a car that everyone could use for outings. On occasions staff had also used their cars to support people to get to places.

People told us that if they were upset or fed up they would go and talk to a member of staff. One person told us they were happy living at Seymour House. People told us they felt safe. One person said “If we do something wrong we get told off”. We asked if all the staff told them off and they said “No, just one or two”. We followed that matter up with staff and the manager. Both staff and the manager took the matter seriously. The manager told us she would look into the matter after our visit.

We found people’s needs were assessed and care was provided in line with their care plan. People’s nutritional needs were met. The service had satisfactory arrangements in place for the control of medicines. There were appropriate pre-employment checks on staff involved in supporting people. There were sufficient staff to support people. Complaints by people were investigated.

People told us that they were comfortable living in the home. They said that the staff provided help when they needed it. They said they were able to go out when they wanted to and were not obliged to participate in an activity if they didn’t feel up to it.