We inspected Southview Close on 23 and 29 August 2018. This was an unannounced inspection.

At the last inspection which took place on 7 January 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Southview Close is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Southview Close provides personal care without nursing for up to 12 adults with a range of learning disabilities. There are two flats on the ground floor and two flats on the top floor, each with three bedrooms. There were 11 people living at Southview Close at the time of the inspection.

The care service has 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.

There was a registered manager at 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.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were only deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this was in their best interests, the provider sought legal authorisation to do so under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Relatives were very happy with the care and support their family members received. They said they were involved in planning their care and were able to visit the service without restrictions. They said the support workers were always welcoming and looked after their family members really well.

People were supported to live independent lives and took part in a number of activities both within the home and outside in the community. They had the opportunity to meet with their link worker on a regular basis during which they were asked if they were happy with the service and if there were any areas in which they needed some help or support.

There was an open culture at the service. Incidents and accidents were recorded and used as a learning opportunity, staff were provided with previous examples of incidents that had taken place, the findings and the action taken in response. Staff were also provided with regular information about safeguarding. We received positive feedback from health and social care professionals about the good working relationship they had with the service.

Care plans were person centred and focused on how best to support people. People’s health needs including their medicines were managed well. People’s dietary and nutritional needs were being met.

Robust recruitment checks were in place and new staff completed a comprehensive induction based on recommended guidance. Mandatory training was available to staff to maintain their learning and appropriate guidance and support was delivered through regular 1:1 and team meetings.

There were some well-established governance systems to assess and monitor the quality of service that people using the service received.

This inspection took place on 7 January 2016 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection on 25 September 2014 we found the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected.

Southview Close provides care for up to 12 adults with a range of learning disabilities. The service is arranged as four flats, two on the ground floor and two on the top floor, each with three bedrooms. There were 12 people using the service at the time of our inspection, eight male and four female.

There was a registered manager at 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.

People using the service told us they felt safe living at the service and would speak to the manager if they were not happy. They told us that staff treated them kindly and looked after them. Staff demonstrated a caring and kind attitude towards people. Some of the staff had been working at the service for a long time which had enabled them to get to know people and build good relationships with them. This was clear to see in our observations during the inspection. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and the atmosphere in the service was warm and informal.

People were supported to take their medicines and had their healthcare needs met. They were registered with a local GP and staff made appointments for them when needed. Healthcare professionals told us they were kept informed by staff of any changes to the support needs of people using the service.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had received training in MCA and DoLS. There was evidence that best interests meetings were held for people who did not have capacity to make specific decisions and the provider placed restrictions on people where necessary to ensure their safety after seeking legal authorisation.

The majority of people spent time at community day centres during the week. There was a lack of structured activities within the service for those that stayed at home. Although people were assigned as link workers, regular meetings did not always take place.

The care plans were in the process of being reviewed and developed into new person-centred plans. We saw some examples of the new plans and they were easy to follow and written in a way that was easy to understand. Due to the overhaul of the care plans, some information was difficult to find meaning we had to rely on staff to show us where certain records were kept.

Staff recruitment checks were robust and staff levels at the service were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they felt supported and enjoyed working for the organisation. They praised the registered manager, saying she listened to them and had an open door policy. They told us they were happy with the training and formal supervision they received at the service.

The values and culture of the organisation were on display in the staff room and staff received training in how they could showcase these values during their day to day job.

A number of audits, both internal and external, were carried out which the provider used to monitor and improve the quality of service. An area manager visited the service every month which helped to ensure that any identified issues were picked up and resolved.

At the previous inspection on 16 January 2014, we identified non-compliance with two outcomes. We had found that although people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage current medicines, medication that was no longer in use was not stored safely. We had also found that people who use the service, staff and visitors were not fully protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. Following the receipt of the report, the provider sent us an action plan which explained how they would make improvements within an agreed timescale.

At this inspection we found that the provider had addressed the areas of non-compliance. Lockable cabinets had been installed within lockable cupboards, which were being appropriately used. The environment was well maintained and actions had been taken to fully repair the damaged fixtures seen at the previous inspection. People living at the service told us they were happy and enjoyed living in their home.

During our visit we spoke with members of staff and contacted relatives of people using the service by telephone after our inspection.

We saw that the care plans were detailed, up to date and produced in an easy read format. Relatives said they were involved in the development and review of care plans "They always discuss everything with me about the care".

People told us that they were very happy with the care their relative was receiving "First class treatment and care".

We saw that repairs were required to some areas of the home including a bathroom.

People had a choice of food and the menu for the week was displayed in pictorial form in each flat. Relatives said "The food is lovely" and "They never used to like curry and now they love it".

Staff and relatives we spoke with felt there were enough staff to provide the level of care and support required by the people using the service. A relative said "The staff are absolutely lovely".

We saw that medication due to be returned to the pharmacy was not stored appropriately.

A relative said "Honestly, I can't find any fault with the home".

During our visit we spoke with the manager and two members of staff. We were unable to speak with the people who use the service due to their complex needs during the visit. Following our visit we contacted the relatives of two people that use the service by telephone to ask their views of the care provided.

The building was clean and tidy and we observed the staff supporting the people who use the service in a positive and friendly manner. One relative we spoke with, when asked about the staff, said "they are a very nice team of caring people". Another relative said "it's like a family home".

Both members of staff we spoke with felt they received a good level of training and support and one person said "If anything is going wrong you can discuss it with your supervisor".

Both of the relatives we spoke with felt they were being involved in the care being provided for their family member and said that they both felt their relative was very happy living at Southview Close.

On this occasion we did not meet with people who use the service, as we visited the service to check compliance with Outcomes 4 and 21 of the Essential Standards of Quality and Safety, regarding the care and welfare or people who use the service and records.

However at our last Review of Compliance of the service, in September 2011, we found that people who use the service led active lives, using staff support where necessary. The staff showed commitment to ensuring people do the things they want to do, and them living their lives as inependently as possible. There was also evidence of the different ways people had been enabled to make choices about their lives and what they want to do.

The people we met during our visit were unable to communicate with us verbally.

Based on the information available we found that people who use the service led active lives, using the support of staff where necessary.

The staff showed commitment to ensuring people do the things they want to do, and them living their lives as independently as possible.

There was evidence at the service of different ways that people have been enabled to make choices about their lives and what they want to do.