This inspection took place on 6 and 13 December 2016. This was The Baden Powell Centre’s third inspection since the service opened in 2013, and the service was compliant in all areas inspected on both previous inspections. The first day of our inspection visit was unannounced.

The Baden Powell Centre specialises in providing accommodation and personal care for up to 16 adults who have a learning disability and autism or other associated needs. At the time of our inspection, there were 15 people living in the service. The people living at the service were all adults under the age of 40 years. The service is run by Quality Care (EM) limited, a privately owned organisation who have four care homes for adults with learning disabilities in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

All the people living at The Baden Powell Centre had their own self-contained apartments, with their own bedroom, bathroom, and open-plan kitchen, dining and living room areas. People also had access to communal facilities including a gym, café, arts and crafts space and a sensory room. Separate laundry facilities were available within the main building. People had access to the service’s enclosed garden. Local independent shops were accessible within short walking distance, as were a range of leisure and entertainment facilities.

The service had a registered manager at the time of our inspection visit, and they were available throughout our inspection visit. 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 live their lives as independently as possible, both within The Baden Powell Centre and out in the local community. Each person had support that was specifically tailored to their needs and aspirations. The service had made a difference to the lives of people living there. There had been positive changes for people since they moved to the service, which could be evidenced through their personal achievements, happiness, and opportunities to try new experiences. Staff understood how to maintain a balance between developing new skills, taking risks and being safe in order to ensure people were supported to live their lives in as ordinary a way as possible. People were able to try new activities and build on their skills by a staff team who understood their needs and knew how to balance opportunities and risks. Staff supported people to reflect on their achievements and look at what they would like to do in the future. For example, one person was looking forward to moving to live more independently, and other people were accessing community facilities such as sports clubs. The registered manager and all staff had an excellent understanding of managing risks and supporting people to maintain independence. There was a robust system in place to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse, and people, relatives and staff felt confident to raise concerns about unsafe care.

Staff were recruited in a safe way, and were well trained and supported. The provider did checks to ensure that potential staff were suitable to work with people needing care. Staff received a comprehensive induction, regular supervision and had checks on their knowledge and skills. They had training in a range of skills the provider felt necessary to meet the needs of people at the service. This included bespoke training and support to ensure people with complex needs were supported by staff with the right skills and experience. Training was based on current best practice and guidance, so staff had up to date skills and knowledge to support people effectively. All staff were encouraged to contribute to the planning of people’s care, and to put forward ideas for improving the quality o

There were ten people living at the centre at the time of our visit.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. We spoke with one person who lived at the home and with the relatives of three others. We also spoke with three members of the staff.

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

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were supported to make decisions and staff ensured that people’s decisions were respected. All of the relatives we spoke with told us that staff supported people in a safe and effective way.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents. This meant that the service could identify the risks to people and had an adequate system of service improvement.

Procedures were in place to support staff and maintain their skills and knowledge. Staff understood the provider’s procedures for dealing with emergencies, such as in the event of a fire.

Is the service effective?

People’s care needs were fully assessed and written care plans were devised from these. They provided staff with the information they needed to effectively support people with their daily living and social activities and to help them achieve their individual goals and aspirations. People’s individual abilities and behavioural needs had been assessed and their needs supported.

People’s relatives told us they were happy with the standard of care that people received.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Is the service caring?

People and their relatives were positive about the standard of the care and support people received.

Staff demonstrated good rapport with the people they were supporting, who were relaxed and seemed comfortable in their surroundings.

Each person’s support plan contained a section which related to their diet and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. People were encouraged to choose how they preferred their home to look and feel.

Is the service responsive?

The provider told us they had not received any complaints about the service.

People’s relatives we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy, but said they had not needed to complain.

The provider was responsive to people’s changing support needs and care was designed and delivered to meet people’s individual needs. People and their relatives were given regular opportunities to comment on the way care and support was being delivered and the provider had responded to reflect people’s views.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager in place who coordinated and regularly checked the arrangements for people’s care and support to make sure it was safe and met their needs.

The service had an effective quality assurance system. Records showed that regular audits had taken place to identify any risks to the safety of people who used the service. Where issues had been found action plans had been put in place to deal with them.

The provider kept records of all accidents and incidents in the home. These had been investigated and the cause of the issues identified. Actions plans had been put in place to reduce re-occurrence.

The provider worked well with other agencies and care services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

There were two people living at The Baden Powell Centre at the time of our inspection. A number of other people were in the process of moving into the service, which involved them making visits to the centre, spending time with the staff team and personalising their apartment. Only one of the people living at the centre was able to speak with us, however in order to protect their confidentiality we have only shared our findings in relation to our observations and review of records.

The service had officially opened on the 9 January 2013 and was made up of 16 individual apartments and a range of activity rooms and facilities.

We looked at a sample of care plans for people living in the centre and also those in place for people transitioning into the service. Care plans considered people’s ability to advocate for themselves which included making choices about their care or whether they required additional support. Additional care plans were in place which considered people’s likes and dislikes, gender and sexual awareness and communication.

We found that medicines were being safely administered and that appropriate arrangements were generally in place in relation to the recording of medicine.

Regular audits of the service provided were being completed and acted upon. These included monthly medication audits, audits of people’s care plans, environmental audits and a monthly food hygiene audit.