The inspection took place on the 21 February 2017 and was announced. Forty eight hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and often people and staff could be out in the community during the day. We wanted to ensure that the people we needed to speak to would be available.

Sussex Oakleaf Housing Association Limited provides a range of short to longer term residential services across Sussex. These services offer accommodation and 24 hour support to individuals, male and female, from diverse backgrounds living with enduring mental health conditions and who may have other additional support needs. 54 Leylands Road provides accommodation and support for up to six adults with mental health conditions. The home supports people of mixed ages who are largely independent and assist where needed to improve their life and skills.

At the last inspection on 25 November 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us they felt the service was safe and felt comfortable in raising any concerns to staff. One person told us “It is quite a nice place and I feel safe and can raise concerns with the staff if needed”.

The provider had arrangements in place for the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. People were supported to get their medicine safely when they needed it. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health care services.

Staff considered peoples capacity using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as guidance. People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed. 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. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People told us they received effective care and support to meet their needs. People still spoke highly of the support they received from staff at the home. One person told us “Staff here have the right training and skills to help manage and deal with my problems”.

People’s individual needs were assessed and support plans were developed to identify what care and support they required. People were consulted about their care to ensure wishes and preferences were met. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to obtain specialist advice about people’s care and treatment.

The home had a communal kitchen for everyone to use. People were encouraged and supported to shop for and cook their own meals. One person told us they were a vegetarian and that the staff had prepared “lovely meals” for them. It was evident the staff catered for people with different dietary needs.

People remained encouraged to express their views and had completed surveys. Feedback received showed people were satisfied overall. People also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed

Staff felt fully supported by management to undertake their roles. Staff were given training updates, supervision and development opportunities. One member of staff told us us “Head office is currently planning more training for this year. We have been doing some e-learning on the computer which has been good and lots to choose from”.

People and staff told us that they were happy with the service provided at the home and the way it was managed. One person told us “The manager is very good and the service is run very well”.

Quality assurance audits were embedded to ensure a good level of quality was maintained. The information gathered from regular audits, monitoring and feedback was used to recognise any shortfalls and make plans accordingly to drive up the quality of the care delivered.

Further information is in the detailed findings below:

This inspection took place on 25th November 2014 and was announced. Forty eight hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and often people and staff were out in the community during the day. We wanted to ensure that the people we needed to speak to would be available.

At the last inspection on 5 November 2013, we asked the provider to improve people’s care records and this action has been completed.

54 Leylands Road provides accommodation and support for up to six adults with mental health needs. The home supports people of mixed ages who are largely independent and assist where needed to improve their life and communication skills.

The home had a registered manager. ‘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 experiences of people were positive. People told us they felt safe living at the home and staff were very kind. Staff supported people to live independently and helped people with living skills and self care. Staff showed a great understanding about peoples needs. People were encouraged and supported in daily activities such as going shopping and cooking their own food.

People had access to and could choose suitable educational, leisure and social activities in line with their individual interests and hobbies. These included day trips to cities, shopping and voluntary work at a local charity shop.

People’s needs were assessed and care plans were developed to identify what care and support they required. Staff worked with healthcare professionals such as Doctors and Physiatrists to obtain specialist advice to ensure people received the care and treatment they needed. People were supported to live as independently as possible.

Residents and staff meetings regularly took place which provided an opportunity for staff and people to feedback on the quality of the service. Staff and people told us they liked regular meetings. Feedback was sought on a daily basis; the home accommodated six people and this meant they could talk to the staff throughout the day and raise any concerns if needed. Feedback was also sought on an annual basis via a survey for people and staff.

Staff had some knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) however training records showed staff had not received specific training on the Mental Capacity Act.

There were six people living at the service on the day of our visit, all of whom were male. We spoke with two people who used the service, the manager and two members of staff. One person we talked with told us “I am treated well” and that he was supported to work towards his goals. Another person told us that they were supported well, and that the house meetings were helpful.

People told us that they were consulted on how their support was provided and that staff responded to any concerns or questions they had. Records seen showed that their individual needs had been assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with these. We found that people had been offered choices in their support and treatment, and that there were systems in place to ensure that their consent to treatment was obtained. People were able to influence how the service was provided mainly through liaising with their key worker and contributing to the regular house meetings.

Medicines were safely administered. Staff had received training in administering medicines, and records showed that staff had undertaken competency checks to ensure that they administered medicines safely. One person told us “Everything is okay with my medicines.”

Staff we spoke to said that they felt well supported. One said that managers and other staff were “Helpful and supportive”. However, records showed that not all staff were up to date with the training they were expected to undertake, and that staff supervision meetings had not taken place for two or three months.

Most records we looked at showed that appropriate support for people was planned and provided. However medication records did not show that appropriate guidelines for staff on use of individual ‘as required’ medicines were in place. For one person we found that there was a lack of records to show that follow up with relevant professionals after a medical incident had taken place.

During our visit we spoke with three members of staff and three people who used the service and we observed staff supporting people who used the service.

We made observations throughout the visit and saw people being offered choices as to how they wanted to use their time.

We saw people being addressed in a respectful manner. We looked at peoples individual recovery plans and saw that the information recorded enabled staff to plan and deliver the required level of care and support on an individual basis.

We saw that regular audits of the service were completed by the provider ensuring that people who used the service benefit from a service that monitors the quality of care that people received.

Staff told us that they had received regular training and that they felt that they were supported to carry out their roles and meet the needs of people who used the service.

A person who was using the service stated that "I am delighted with the service" and "I am very happy here."