Our inspection took place on 5 September 2016 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 9 May 2014 and the service was found to be compliant with the Regulations.

The Bungalow provides accommodation and personal care for up to 4 adults with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection 3 people lived there.

There was not a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection: 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. However the provider had appointed a manager to oversee the management of the location and this person would be applying for the registered managers status.

Systems to monitor the quality and consistency of the care provided were not always being completed and, where they were, they were not always effective at identifying improvements required. However, the manager was aware of the improvements required and there was an action plan in place to address these issues.

People felt safe living at the home. People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report potential abuse and staff had a good understanding of how care and support should be provided in order to keep people safe. Risks to the health, safety and well-being of people were identified and managed. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to respond to people’s needs and support people safely. People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely and had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s care and support needs.

The principles and applications of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood and followed.

People had enough to eat and drink and were involved in the planning of meals and were given choices. People had good access to a range of healthcare professionals when required.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Staff supported people in a way which maintained their privacy and dignity and encouraged people’s independence.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and interests and had people had choice and control over how they lived their lives. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns or complaints.

People and staff were encouraged to be involved in the development of the service. People and relatives knew who the manager was and felt they were approachable. Staff felt supported and felt they could approach the manager with concerns or suggestions.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

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

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

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

On the day of our inspection there were two people present at the Bungalow. Because of their complex health needs we were unable to communicate verbally in any great detail. However, when we asked them if they were happy, felt safe and whether the staff treated them well both were able to show their agreement. One person we spoke with was able to communicate by giving us the ‘thumbs up’ sign when we asked questions.

People were looked after by staff who had received training in how to recognise possible harm or abuse and understood their responsibilities in acting on and reporting this.

Risks to the environment and people had been identified and managed in a way that ensured people’s safety. This included risks associated with medicines and activities people took part in.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no application had needed to be submitted procedures were in place and staff had received training in these safeguards.

Is the service effective?

People’s needs had been assessed before care was provided and their plan of care was individual to them. People were involved in keeping their own care records up to date and encouraged to contribute to their plan of care. Staff showed a good understanding of how to respond to people’s support needs.

Staff were supported in their roles through regular meetings with the registered manager. Training was appropriate to their roles and kept updated. This ensured they could meet people’s needs.

We saw evidence that the provider worked closely with other health professionals to ensure there was a joined up approach to meeting people’s care.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff treated people with respect, dignity and kindness. Staff told us, “It’s more like a family environment” and “It’s not like being at work, everyone’s great”.

Care records reflected how people wanted to be supported and described what was important to them.

People using the service were comfortable interacting with staff. This meant staff were familiar with how people wanted to be supported and had developed positive relationships with them.

Is the service responsive?

Activities were provided for people which were individual and relevant to them. One person was excited about going to ‘Soccer Aid’ in the near future. We saw staff engaged with a person playing table football. Another person was happy to listen to music in their room and staff respected this.

Incidents and accidents were acted on and monitored by the provider. Changes in people's needs were responded to and care records updated to reflect these changes.

Is the service well led?

Staff told us they found the registered manager, “Approachable and supportive”. They told us that they were able to speak about any concerns or issues with them and felt they were listened to.

The quality of care provided was monitored by the registered manager and the provider on a regular basis. Regular 'resident' and staff meetings were held where people and staff could raise any concerns and make comments. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

There were four people living in the home when we visited. Although we met two of them, they were not able to express their views about the service they received in any detail. However, one person was happy to interact with us and gave lots of thumbs up signs throughout our visit. Another person told us that the staff, “Are making me very happy”.

We found that people were supported to make decisions and that their choices were respected. We saw evidence that people’s best interests were considered when decisions were taken on their behalf.

We saw that care plans were comprehensive and person centred. We saw that people's personal goals, choices, likes and dislikes were recorded in their care plans. The care plans also contained details of how each person expressed their dissatisfaction or disagreement. We saw staff treating people with respect and kindness throughout our visit.

We found that medicines were safely stored. However we found that medicines administration records were not always accurate.

The provider had a suitable complaints procedure in place. It had been made available to people’s relatives and representatives and was available in an easy to read format for those who needed it.

We visited the service on 17 May 2012. We used a number of methods to help us understand the experience of people who used the service, because people were not all able to tell us their views.

We spoke with two people living at the home, two staff and the manager. We observed the way staff interacted with people using an observational tool designed for the Care Quality Commission (CQC). We looked at records about two people’s care and health. We saw the provider’s quality surveys with the views of professionals and an advocate. We looked at records about staff and running of the home.

People were treated as individuals in accordance with their preferences and cultures. Privacy was respected.

People took part in food shopping, preparing meals and housework in accordance with their abilities. People had individual support for activities and holidays.

People had access to advocates when they needed help to express their views. One communication aid needed development so that the person could make more choices and staff could learn more about the person.

People had access to doctors and one person had regular health checks. The manager was going to seek advice from a health specialist to improve people’s health plans and guidance for staff.

People got along together. The local safeguarding process was used when necessary. People had support to manage their finances safely.

Staff felt well supported. The manager was running two homes but was nearby if needed, and the deputy supervised staff.

Staff did not have all the skills needed to meet people’s needs as the provider’s training arrangements did not ensure timely professional development, but the manager planned to address this soon locally.

People knew how to make a complaint if they wanted to. The provider sought people’s views about care and acted on comments and complaints.

The home was clean and tidy. Effective systems were in place to maintain health and safety.