The inspection took place on 17 and 21 September 2018 and was announced.

Shine Supported Living - South East is a supported living service registered to provide personal care. The service provided care and support to 5 people with a learning disability living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible.

In supported living services people’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service is based in Herne Bay. Two people live in one bungalow and three people live in the bungalow next door. The manager’s office is based in a separate building behind one of the houses.

This is the first inspection since the service registered with CQC in November 2017. At this inspection we rated this service is rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ as we identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

At the time of the inspection the registered manager had not de-registered with CQC but had left the service the week before. There was a new manager in place who had not yet registered with CQC and had not had time to make an impact on the running of the service. 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 care service has not been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Risks to people’s health and well-being were not consistently assessed and fully mitigated. Some risks had been assessed but others had not. Support plans were long and complex, the service used agency staff who did not always know people well and care and support was not always consistent.

Medicines were not consistently managed safely. There were restrictions to people that were not the least restrictive option to keep people safe. The service was not delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) legal framework as some people were deprived on their liberty and the provider had failed to seek lawful authority.

Staff had not undertaken all of the relevant training needed to support people with their assessed needs. Support was not always available to assist people to develop their communication skills as staff did not have access to the appropriate training. Staff had not had supervision with a line manager for some time. Previously the service had senior support workers in place, however there were none in post at the time of the inspection. Staff did not always feel supported or informed by the provider.

People were not always supported to express their views about their care. Some people were non-verbal and needed support to communicate. We made a recommendation about this.

The support provided did not consistently meet peoples assessed needs and preferences. Support was not always personalised.

Notifications of important events were not always sent to CQC when they should have been. The providers checks on the quality of the service did not always identify concerns and where concerns were identified these were not always acted upon. Relatives were involved in planning peoples care but were not always informed by the provider about important changes to the service such as regular staff leaving.

There was a complaints process in place and people and their relatives knew how to complain. The co