The inspection took place on 21 October and 20 December 2016. The first day of the inspection was unannounced; however the registered manager was aware that we were going to return for a second day of inspection.

Sutton Court, Shakespeare Road is located in Worthing, West Sussex. It is registered to accommodate a maximum of six people. The home provides support to people living with a learning disability or autistic spectrum conditions, who may need assistance with their personal care and support needs. The home itself is a large detached property, with ensuite rooms, a communal kitchen, lounge and gardens. On the day of our inspection there were six people living at the home.

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.

People were protected from harm and abuse. There were sufficient quantities of appropriately skilled and experienced staff who had undertaken the necessary training to enable them to recognise concerns and respond appropriately. Peoples’ freedom was not unnecessarily restricted and they were able to take risks in accordance with risk assessments that had been devised and implemented.

Peoples’ independence was promoted and encouraged and people were able to choose how to live their lives. One person told us, “I can choose who I go out with and I pick the ones I like”. People who were able, were able to independently dispense and administer their own medicines, this was risk assessed and monitored by staff to ensure their safety. People received their medicines on time and according to their preferences, from staff with the necessary training and who had their competence assessed. There were safe systems in place for the storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

People were supported by staff with the necessary skills and experience to meet their needs. They had access to regular training and observations showed that they supported people appropriately. People were asked their consent before being supported and staff had a good awareness of legislative requirements with regard to making decisions on behalf of people who lacked capacity. One member of staff told us, “We always get their consent first”.

People and their relatives, if appropriate, were fully involved in the planning, review and delivery of care and were able to make their wishes and preferences known. Support plans were person-centred and documented peoples’ needs and wishes in relation to their social, emotional and health needs and these were reviewed and updated regularly to ensure that they were current.

There were varied responses with regard to the food that was provided. Most people were happy with the food and were able to choose what they had to eat. One person told us, “I like the food here, X is a good cook”. People’s health needs were assessed and met and they had access to medicines and healthcare professionals when required.

The home had a relaxed, friendly and homely atmosphere. When asked about the ethos of the service provided, one member of staff told us, “To create a home for life based on the concept of family”. Staff worked in accordance with peoples’ wishes and people were treated with respect and dignity. It was apparent that staff knew peoples’ needs and preferences well. Positive relationships had developed between people and staff. One person told us, “I like living here, I have a key worker, I get on with them. I’m happy, I’m not angry”. Another person told us, “They’re very kind, I like them”.

The registered manager welcomed feedback and used this to drive improvements and change. There were minimal complaints and those that had been made were dealt with effectively and in acc

On the day of our visit there were six people using the service. The people who lived at the home had complex support needs and were not always able to tell us their views using the spoken word. We were met by the registered manager and later on we were joined by the operations manager of the company. We spoke with two support staff and met all the people who use the service.

We found that people’s individual preferences were respected and catered for, and they were supported to go out into the community and partake in a range of activities. They were encouraged to be as independent as possible and to participate in the life of the home.

We found that people’s care was being properly managed and that everyone had a robust, comprehensive and detailed support plan in place that was reviewed and updated. We saw the relationship and interactions between staff and people who use the service were positive and respectful.

We spoke with relatives of one person using the service who told us that they were happy with the service provided and that the care was of an excellent standard provided by friendly professional staff. Another relative told us that staff communicated with them regularly and that staff had made them aware of the complaints procedure; but they had never had cause to use it. A mother of another client commented on how happy she was with the service and that the staff were "wonderful".

We spoke with five of the six people who lived at Shakespeare Road. People told us they were happy living at the home. One person said, "It's fun here." They told us that staff treated them kindly and supported them to partake in their preferred activities. People felt included in the daily running of the home including cooking their own meals. One person commented, "Everyone gets a chance of choosing their own food."

We found that consent to care and treatment was documented in writing to show that people were included in decisions about their care. Where appropriate, people's family members were also included in discussions about care and treatment.

We found that people's care and treatment had been planned and implemented in line with their needs and preferences. People's care plans were robust and detailed. They included information for staff about how people wished to be supported. Care plans were reviewed regularly and discussed with people to ensure they reflected people's most up to date needs.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and neglect. People told us they felt safe living at Shakespeare Road. Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and understood how to identify and report abuse.

We found there was enough staff working at the home. People were supported to partake in leisure activities which staff facilitated.

Records were adequately maintained and stored securely.

We spoke to three people during the visit.

People said they liked living at the home and were able to make choices in how they spent their time.

People said they liked the food and were able to make suggestions about meals.

Discussions with people showed that each person had taken part in activities suited to their personal needs and their choice. This included attendance at college courses, art work, swimming and day trips to places of interest such as a transport museum.

People said they liked the staff. One person said the home provided enough staff so that people could go out to activities.

One person said he/she felt safe at the home.