This inspection took place on 26 May 2017 and was unannounced.

The service registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 29 January 2016 and this was the first inspection since registration.

Sherburn House is registered to offer accommodation and residential support for up to 12 people over the age of 18, who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of this inspection there were 10 people using the service.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager, but at the time of our inspection the manager in post was not registered with the Commission. For this report we have referred to this person as ‘the acting manager’ throughout the text. 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.

We found that the care staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and the staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes. We found that the administration of medication was safely carried out, but some aspects of recording practices, for example, 'as and when required' (PRN) medicine protocols and topical medicine charts (for external medicines) could be better.

People had their health and social care needs assessed and plans of care were developed to guide staff in how to support people. The plans of care were individualised to include preferences, likes and dislikes. People who used the service received additional care and treatment from health professionals based in the community. People had risk assessments in their care files to help minimise risks whilst still supporting people to make choices and decisions.

People that used the service were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and received appraisal regarding their personal performance. Communication was effective, people’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. However, the quality of recording of food and fluids consumed on a daily basis needed to improve.

People were able to see their families as they wanted. There were no restrictions on when people could visit the service. We saw that staff were caring and people were happy with the care they received. People had access to community facilities and most participated in the activities provided in the service.

We observed good interactions between people who lived in the service and staff on the day of the inspection. We found that people received compassionate care from kind staff and staff knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook support tasks.

People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately and there were systems in place to seek feedback from people and their relatives about the service provided. We saw that the acting manager met with people on a regular basis to discuss their care and any concerns they might have. This meant people were consulted about their care and treatment and were able to make their own choices and decisions.

People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected and staff worked to maintain these wherever possible.

The staff and one relative told us that the service was well managed. The registered provider and acting manager monitored the quality of the service, supported the members of staff and ensured that there were effective communication and response systems in place for people who used the servi