This unannounced inspection took place on 15 March 2017 and was completed on 20 March 2017 when we received the report from the expert by experience. At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good in all key areas.

Sheridan House provides care and support for up to nine people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum conditions. At the time of our inspection, seven people were living at the service.

There was 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.

Potential risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been reduced because there were effective risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how to support people safely. There were systems in place to safeguard people from avoidable harm and staff had been trained in safeguarding procedures. The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff had regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care and support being provided. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the related Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been met.

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives. There was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the home, and people appeared happy and content. People had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were supported to access other health services when required.

People’s needs had been assessed and they had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. People and their relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing people’s care plans. A variety of activities were provided to help people to socialise and they enjoyed pursuing their interests outside of the home.

The provider had an effective system to handle complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, other professionals and staff, and they acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service.

The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive continuous improvements. The manager provided stable leadership and effective support to the staff. They worked effectively with staff to promote a caring and inclusive culture within the service. Collaborative working with people's relatives and other professionals resulted in positive care outcomes for people who used the service.

We carried out an unannounced inspection on 8 January 2015. At our last inspection in August 2013 we found that the provider was meeting their legal requirements in the areas we looked at.

The home provides care and support for up to nine people who have learning difficulties. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living at the home.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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 were safe and the provider had effective systems in place to safeguard people. People’s medicines were administered safely and they were given a choice of nutritious food and drink throughout the day.

People were supported regularly by an advocacy service and three people had an appointed Independent Mental Capacity Advocate to support them. Staff supported people to follow their hobbies and interest.

Support records included personal information, reflected people’s wishes and were reviewed regularly. There were personalised assessments in place to reduce the risk of harm occurring to people, and the provider had plans in place to keep people safe in an emergency.

There was enough skilled, trained staff to meet people’s identified support needs. The provider had a robust recruitment procedure that enabled them to be confident that newly recruited staff were suitable for the posts to which they had been appointed. Staff received on-going training and were supported to gain professional qualifications. They had regular supervision meetings at which their performance and training needs were discussed.

Staff were caring and protected people’s dignity and privacy. They understood the provider’s vision and values, which were embedded in their day to day practice. They felt supported by the manager and were aware of their roles and responsibilities.

The provider complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They had an effective complaints system and listened to people’s comments on improvements that could be made to the service provided.

At our inspection of Sheridan House on 26 April 2013, we identified concerns relating to care delivery which was potentially unsafe. This was particulary related to the way one to one support was managed for people who used the service. We told the provider they must make improvements.

We carried out a further inspection on 09 August 2013, and found that new systems had been introduced to ensure that people were safely supported in all their activities.

We observed positive engagement between staff and people who used the service, and the staff we spoke with were familiar with the level of support each person required to ensure care was effective and safe.

When we visited Sheridan House on 26 April 2013, in addition to speaking with people who used this service, we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of others. This was because some people had complex needs which meant they were not able to respond to us verbally, to tell us about their experiences. The people we engaged with, signed and gestured to indicate they were happy and liked living at Sheridan House.

We observed positive engagement between staff and people who used the service. People were treated respectfully, and encouraged and supported to make their own decisions. People's body language indicated that they were comfortable and at ease with the staff that supported them.

We found the recruitment systems were sufficient to ensure the staff employed were suitable to work in this environment, and staff had undergone training which enabled them to care for people's complex needs safely and efficiently. Where people presented with behaviour which required physical intervention from staff, this was carried out safely and clearly recorded.

There were personalised care management plans and risk assessments in place. However, we found some staff were unfamiliar with them, or there was insufficient information to ensure care was always delivered safely and with continuity.

Robust medication systems ensured people received their prescribed medication on time and in a way that suited their needs.

During our inspection of Sheridan House we used a number of methods to find out about the experiences of people who lived at the home, because people had complex needs and were not able to tell us about their experiences. We saw that staff knew how to communicate with each person, using a mixture of words, pictures and sign language, and communicated with them well. People showed, by their body language, facial expressions and their own words, that they were settled well in their home.

Care plans were personalised and gave staff good guidance on the ways in which each person preferred to be supported. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and their healthcare needs were met so that they maintained good health. Assessments of risk had been carried out and plans were in place to manage, and thereby reduce, risks to people.

Staff had received training in how to protect vulnerable people and demonstrated they knew the procedures for reporting any concerns. Staff told us that they had received regular supervision and had undergone training in a range of topics so that they were competent to carry out their role.

The provider had measures in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that the views of the people who lived at the home were taken into account.

During our visit on 22 June 2011 we saw that people were relaxed and at ease in the company of the staff. People interacted well with the staff that were supporting them, and although verbal communication was very limited in this home, sign language was continuously being used very effectively as an alternative method of communication.

There was a homely atmosphere and people were encouraged to make personal choices relating to their care and how they spent their time.