This inspection took place on 21, 22 and 27 September 2016 and was announced. This was to ensure someone would be available to speak with us and show us records. We visited the provider’s office on 21 September 2016 and visited Short Breaks - 8 Broadlands Walk on 22 September 2016. We spoke with family members by telephone on 27 September 2016.

Short Breaks - 8 Broadlands Walk was last inspected by CQC on 28 May 2014 and was compliant with the regulations in force at that time.

Short Breaks - 8 Broadlands Walk provides respite care and accommodation for up to four people with learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection there were two people staying at the home however there were 22 people who used the service in total.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Risk assessments were in place for people who used the service and described potential risks and the safeguards in place. However, a falls risk assessment tool had not been completed for one person to show the level of risk.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received medicines as prescribed.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service and appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The registered provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and training sessions were planned for any due or overdue refresher training. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals.

The registered provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was following the requirements in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs.

Family members were complimentary about the standard of care at Short Breaks - 8 Broadlands Walk. Staff helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care plans were written in a person centred way. Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs.

People who used the service, and family members, were aware of how to make a complaint however there had been no formal complaints recorded at the service.

Staff felt supported by the management team and were comfortable raising any concerns. Family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service. Family members said the management team were approachable and understanding.

Some policies and procedures were out of date however this was being addressed by the registered provider.

An inspector visited this service on 28 May to carry out an inspection. Prior to our visit we looked at all the information we hold on this service to help us to plan and focus on our five questions;

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, two relatives and two care staff. On the day of the inspection the registered manager of the home was not present so we spoke with the assistant network manager. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with two people who used the service who both told us they liked staying at the home and they were treated well and in the way that they wanted. We also spoke with two relatives who told us they were happy with the care and support the staff provided to their family member. Some comments included; "It’s a really good service." And, I’m very happy with it.” We saw staff were patient and kind when engaging with people at the home. One staff member told us; “I’m proud of the care given to people who come here because they’re happy and the families are happy.” Our observations and the comments from people we spoke with showed us that people were treated with empathy and dignity by the staff.

Is the service safe?

The people that we spoke with us told us they felt safe.

On the day of our inspection we spoke with staff who were knowledgeable of the procedures to take if they were concerned that people were at risk of harm and abuse. We noted an incident had been reported to a person’s social worker but this had not been notified to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). As it is a requirement that certain events are notified to the CQC, we discussed this with the assistant network manager who assured us this was an oversight. Following the inspection we received written assurance of this. We saw there were regular checks in place to minimise the risk of harm and abuse. For example we saw that checks were carried out to ensure people’s money remained safe. This showed us the home had systems in place to minimise the risk of financial abuse.

The Care Quality Commission has a duty to monitor activity under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure vulnerable people over the age of 18 have their human and civil rights upheld. Care home providers must make an application to the local authority when it is in a person's best interests to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe from harm. At the time of our inspection there were no applications in place.

Is the service effective?

We saw people who stayed at Short Breaks had care records which included assessments of their individual needs and risks. Each person had a care plan which contained information for care staff to enable care and treatment to be delivered in a way that met people’s needs. This was person centred and contained information important to the person such as personal preferences and dislikes. This showed us the service consulted with people to ensure the documentation staff used to deliver care was reflective of their wishes and choices. We also saw each person’s care records contained risk assessments to identify and manage any risks identified. We noted one care record identified a risk, but did not contain any instruction on how the risk was to be managed. We discussed this with the assistant network manager who amended the record during the inspection.

Is the service responsive?

The service had systems in place to ensure people were regularly consulted about their views and ideas on how the service should be run. This was done by means of regular discussions with people, satisfaction surveys and coffee mornings. We saw that if improvements were identified, these were actioned as appropriate. We spoke with two relatives who told us the home sought their views and that they were happy with the level of involvement offered to them. The records we viewed and the comments from people we spoke with showed us the home responded to suggestions and comments from people and gave feedback to people who used the service.

Is the service well led?

The service had systems in place to ensure areas for improvement were identified. We saw quality audits were carried out to check the information contained in the persons care records remained up to date and accurate. We also saw cleanliness and medication audits were carried out. We noted any shortfalls were identified and action taken as appropriate. Staff told us and we saw documentation which demonstrated staff received ongoing supervision and appraisals from their manager. This allowed staff to discuss any concerns, seek feedback regarding their performance and identify training needs. We saw action was taken to support staff if needs were noted. Comments from staff, relatives, and documentation we viewed showed us that the service was well led.

We spoke with three people who used the service. They told us they liked going to stay at 8 Broadlands Walk and that the staff were very nice. They also told us they liked the activities and the food was good. We also spoke with three relatives of people who used the service. Comments included: “I find it very good. [My relative] enjoys it and it gives me a break”, “The staff really do involve people as much as they can” and “They treat [my relative] very well. No problems at all”.

Short Breaks – 8 Broadlands Walk had suitable arrangements in place for obtaining and acting in accordance with, the consent of people who used the service. We found people who used the service experienced effective, safe and appropriate care and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. There were effective infection control procedures in place.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink and were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People’s personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose. Records were kept securely and overall could be located promptly when needed.

During our visit we spoke to one of the three people staying at the home and two relatives. Everyone we spoke to was happy with all aspects of the care provided. Both relatives said they were confident that their relative was safe and had their needs met when they stayed at the home. The person using the service gave us many examples of things they enjoyed doing during their stays. One relative said: "[My relative] has been coming here for at least 20 years, they like it here, it is very good care". The other relative said: "I have no problems or complaints at all". The person using the service said: "I like it here, I do things I enjoy and I think the staff do a good job - I like everything".