The service provides residential care for up to four adults with learning and physical disabilities.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 previously inspected Solent Lodge on the 8 December 2016 and rated the home as requires improvement. We found a breach Regulation 17 HSCA RA Regulations 2014 Good governance. People who used the service were not protected against the risks of unsafe or ineffective care because effective quality assurance of the service was not taking place. We also found a breach of Regulation 12 HSCA RA Regulations 2014, Safe care and treatment. People who used the service were not always protected against the risks of unsafe or ineffective care because appropriate checks were not always being done to ensure that medicines were stored correctly. Regular checks had not been done to ensure the competency of staff administering medicines. There was insufficient guidance for staff about administering medicines that were to be given ‘as required’ and administration records were not always completed.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the HSCA.

People were safeguarded from potential harm and abuse. Staff undertook safeguarding training and any issues raised were fully investigated. The service was homely and maintained to make sure it remained a safe and pleasant place for people to live.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered to maintain people’s health and safety. During the inspection people's needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff.

Safe arrangements were in place to reduce the possibility of infection in the service.

The provider had learned lessons from previous inspections, accidents and incidents and use this to drive improvement.

Documentation was created in a format suitable to support people to make decisions.

The registered manager and staff had created a culture of promoting independence.

Recruitment processes remained robust. Medicines were administered by staff who had received training to undertake this safely.

Staff were provided with training to help them care for people effectively. They received supervision and appraisal, which helped to develop the staff's skills. People’s dietary needs were known and if staff had concerns people were referred to relevant health care professionals to help to maintain their well-being.

People’s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager understood their responsibilities regarding this.

Staff supported people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to undertake a range of activities at the service and in the community.

People received the care and support they required and their needs were kept under review.

People were asked for their views about the service and feedback received was acted upon. The registered manager, staff and senior management team undertook checks and audits of the service.

This inspection took place on 6 December 2016. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Solent Lodge is a four bedroomed house in a residential area. The service can accommodate up to four people with learning and physical disabilities. There is a lounge, dining room and kitchen and each person had their own individualised room. There were four people living in the home at the time of the inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Appropriate checks were not always being done to ensure that medicines were stored correctly. There was insufficient guidance for staff about administering medicines that were to be given ‘as required’ and there were some gaps in the medicine administration records.

Staff had received medicines training but had not had their competency checked regularly.

There were some systems in place for monitoring and assessing the safety and quality of the service but they had not picked up on the issues that we found.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff had received safeguarding training and were aware of the action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place. Staff were aware of whistle blowing procedures and all said they felt confident to report any concerns without fear of recrimination. The registered provider had up to date safeguarding and whistle blowing policies in place and information on how to report any concerns was displayed within the service. The safeguarding policy was also discussed with people using the service and was available in an easy read format.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. There was a contingency plan in place in case of an emergency and either the registered manager or deputy manager were on call for every shift.

We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken prior to staff starting work. The checks included obtaining references from previous employers and disclosure and barring service checks to ensure that staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

We saw that environmental risk assessments had been carried out. Safety checks and certificates were in place for items that had been serviced and checked such as fire equipment, gas and electrical safety.

Staff received appropriate training and demonstrated that they had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for. Staff received some supervision but these meetings were not as frequent as the registered provider’s guidance stipulated. Despite this staff were in regular contact with the management team and felt supported. Further training is being undertaken by the deputy manager in an effort to improve the formal supervision process.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

The records we viewed showed us that people had appropriate access to health care professionals such as dentists and opticians and had annual health checks with their GP.

We saw that people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks to help ensure their nutritional needs were met. People were involved in the menu planning and shopping and staff were happy to accommodate changes to the menu if people requested it. People’s weight was

There was one person who used the service at the time of our inspection. We used a number of different methods to help us understand their views and experiences. We observed the care provided and looked at supporting documentation. We talked with the person who used the service, one member of support staff, the registered manager, the day to day manager and a relative.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People had individual risk assessments. Where a risk or need had been identified, there was a written plan to inform staff as to how to reduce the risk. We saw people had access to medical support as necessary. Staff had been trained to recognise abuse and knew how to report any concerns .There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who used the service. People who used the service were protected by the service's recruitment and selection process.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. We found staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. There were proper policies and procedures in place and these had been followed as appropriate.

Is the service effective?

We observed people were happy with the care they received and they told us they were happy. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. Staff had been well trained, and were provided with support so they could provide the appropriate level of care for people.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff had a good understanding of people’s support needs. They were supportive and were available when people needed them.

Is the service responsive?

Records showed people's preferences, interests, and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided that met their wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them. People were supported to maintain and increase their independence.

Is the service well-led?

People were asked their views and these were listened to. Staff received appropriate support and guidance from the manager. The manager had a system to record, monitor, evaluate and improve the service, care and support that people received.