Tawny Lodge provides planned short breaks for people with learning and physical disabilities, sensory impairment and autism. The service can accommodate up to four people at a time.

At the time of our comprehensive inspection on 4 July 2017 the service was providing short breaks for a total of 23 people. When we visited, there was one person staying there.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Relatives told us they had peace of mind and felt their relatives were safe when they stayed at the service. Processes were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us the action they should take if abuse was suspected.

Staff were aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy. Whistleblowing is where people can disclose concerns they have about any part of the service where they feel dangerous, illegal or improper activity is happening.

Individual risk assessments and risk management plans were in place to protect people.

There were safe systems to manage the administration of medicines.

Regular checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety policy and procedures were adhered to.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. The number of staff required depended on the needs of the individuals who were staying at the service. When respite was being planned for individuals, their friendships and compatibility with others was considered.

The service had effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Checks were completed before staff could start work. This meant that staff had the skills and experience to work at the service.

We saw that staff had access to on-line and classroom training to support them in their roles. They had regular supervision and arrangements were in place for staff to receive regular appraisals.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. We saw people had detailed support plans in place regarding this.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the provider’s policies and systems supported this practice. The staff supported people to be as independent as possible. They were encouraged to make their own drinks or snacks if they wished and had the skills to do this.

Staff were committed to offering a person centred ‘home from home’ environment which was designed and decorated in line with the needs of the people who used the service. It was spacious and had up to date equipment to support people’s needs. There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere.

Staff were able to describe the importance of respecting people’s dignity and privacy. For example, staff would knock on a door before entering and would ensure people had privacy when supporting with personal care tasks.

Staff would accommodate individuals and their relative’s needs. Staff reflected and shared ideas to enhance people’s experiences of their stay. Relatives were very complimentary about the service.

Support plans were detailed to ensure staff had enough information to meet people’s needs. Plans were reviewed and updated.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The manager was clear about their role and responsibilities.

Staff meetings took place regularly and staff were able to contribute fully and express their opinions or ideas.

People who used the service and their relatives were encouraged to offer feedback and were aware of the complaints procedure. A newsletter was sent out in accessible formats. This showed that people and their relatives were kept up to date with information and any planned events.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 7 July 2015. A breach of legal requirements was found. This was because systems to undertake assessments for those people, who lacked mental capacity to make decisions, had not been established. We identified this as a breach of Regulation 11 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for (Tawny Lodge) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This focused inspection took place on 5 January 2017 and was announced.

Tawny Lodge provides planned short breaks for people with learning and physical disabilities, sensory impairment and autism. The service can accommodate up to four people at a time. When we visited there was one person staying at Tawny Lodge.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

Effective management systems were in place to ensure that staff applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when planning peoples support. People had complex care needs owing to their learning and physical disabilities. The protective measures that were in place to keep people safe were assessed and agreed in their best interests. This included assistive technology such as bed alarms, which had been set up to alert staff if the person needed support.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisations were in place for those people who were not free to leave, and were under constant supervision and continuous control. Staff were confident about their role and understood the importance of undertaking capacity assessments to determine whether people could agree to their care and treatment.

This meant that the previous breach of Regulation 11 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had been met.

The inspection took place on 7 July 2015. We announced the inspection as it was a small respite service and we wanted to be sure people would be available to talk to us.

The service opened in April 2014 and this was the first inspection.

Tawny Lodge provides planned short breaks for people with learning and physical disabilities, sensory impairment and autism. It also provides emergency stays for people. The service can accommodate up to four people at a time. The service is run by North Yorkshire County Council. The building has been completely re developed and opened in April 2014. The service is on two floors. Downstairs there is a communal open plan lounge, kitchen and dining area, and an outside paved patio area. There is also a toilet and laundry room. There are two lifts which are safe to use in a fire. Upstairs there are four large bedrooms, each is en suite and there is a large communal bathroom. There is also another lounge and a quiet room. The manager’s office is on this level.

The service 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.

At this inspection we found the service was in breach of the regulation relating to consent. They were not applying the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.

People and their carers told us they felt safe when they stayed at the service. Staff had access to a safeguarding policy; they had received robust training and had a good understanding of how to safeguard people.

Individual risk assessments and risk management plans were in place and contained detailed guidance for staff about how to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. We were told people’s support needs and friendships were taken into account when planning their stays. As well as this the registered manager told us they tried to match people with staff they had common interests with.

The service had effective recruitment and selection processes in place. They considered the current staff skill mix and experience when recruiting new members of the team.

Staff had access to a variety of training courses to enable them to have the skills to provide support to people with complex care needs. They had regular supervision and were given the opportunity to reflect on their practice and identify any on going development needs.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. We saw people had detailed support plans in place regarding this. The service supported people to be as independent as they could be, and to make their own choices regarding meal times.

The service had good links with healthcare professionals, who provided support in the service and guidance for staff. In addition each person had a hospital VIP passport which provided hospital staff with essential information about how to support the person and also how to recognise signs of them being unwell.

The environment was designed and decorated in line with the needs of the people who used the service. It was spacious and had up to date equipment to support people.

The service was caring. People who used the service and support workers had a good rapport and support staff knew people well. Carers told us they were confident their loved ones were well looked after and that they enjoyed visiting the service.

Support staff were enthusiastic and committed to providing person centred support, which they did. They ensured people’s dignity and privacy was respected. Support plans were person centred and focused on people’s preferences. People took part in a variety of activities.

The service was organised and worked at the person’s pace to support them to feel comfortable with support staff and in the environment.

Feedback from people and their carers was valued and encouraged. Information about how to make a complaint was accessible in a variety of formats for people.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager was clear about their role and responsibilities, and was committed to continually improving the service. One example was work with the National Autistic Society to develop their skills in providing support for people with autism.

Staff meetings took place regularly and people were kept informed about the service via a regular newsletter.