This inspection took place on 21 July 2016 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out in November 2013 and no concerns were identified.

The Cherries is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have a learning disability and other complex needs. The Cherries is situated in a residential area of Folkestone with access to the town centre, leisure centre and public transport. Six people were living at the service at the time of inspection and each had their own personalised bedroom, two of which were ensuite. People had access to a lounge and dining area, a sitting room, a sensory room, a kitchen, two bathrooms, toilets and a large garden.

The service had a registered manager, who was also registered manager for the service located next door and who was present throughout the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff followed correct and appropriate procedures in the storage and dispensing of medicines. People were supported in a safe environment and risks identified for people were managed in a way that enabled people to live as independent a life as possible. People were supported to maintain good health and attended appointments and check-ups. Health needs were kept under review and appropriate referrals were made when required.

A system to recruit new staff was in place. This was to make sure that the staff employed to support people were fit to do so. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to make sure people were safe and received the care and support that they needed.

Staff had completed induction training when they first started to work at the service. Staff were supported during their induction, monitored and assessed to check that they had attained the right skills and knowledge to be able to care for, support and meet people’s needs. There were staff meetings, so staff could discuss any issues and share new ideas with their colleagues, to improve people’s care and lives.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training. They were aware of how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Staff knew about the whistle blowing policy and were confident they could raise any concerns with the provider or outside agencies if needed.

Equipment and the premises received regular checks and servicing in order to ensure it was safe. The registered manager monitored incidents and accidents to make sure the care provided was safe. Emergency plans were in place so if an emergency happened, like a fire, the staff knew what to do.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Some people at the service had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to make complex decisions about their care and welfare. At the time of the inspection the registered manager had applied for DoLS authorisations for people who were at risk of having their liberty restricted.

The care and support needs of each person were complex, and each person’s care plan was personal to them. People had detailed care plans, risk assessments and guidance in place to help staff to support them in an individual way.

Staff encouraged people to be involved and feel included in their environment. People were offered activities and participated in social activities when they chose to do so. Staff knew people and their support needs well.

Staff were caring, kind and respected people’s privacy and dignity. There were positive and cari

There were five people living at The Cherries at the time of our inspection. We looked around the service and observed how staff interacted with people. This helped us to understand the experiences of people who were not able to or preferred not to speak to us.

One person told us “It’s good” when we asked them about living at The Cherries. We saw that staff knew how to support people and were able to understand their needs.

We found that the service had appropriate systems in place to obtain consent in relation to people’s care and support.

People’s care records had been updated to include decisions and guidance for staff which helped them to support people’s behaviour effectively and consistently.

We saw that people were protected from the risk of abuse. This was because staff knew how to recognise potential abuse and what action to take if they suspected abuse.

A new manager had recently taken over the day to day running of this service and the service next door, which was associated with the same provider. Staff told us the manager was available when needed. We saw that staff meetings and scheduled supervision was planned. Training records confirmed that staff had received appropriate training.

There were systems in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service.

We saw that people could make decisions about their care, such as how to spend their time and what to eat. People were encouraged to be independent, for example by being supported to go bowling and swimming. People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained, for example, people were assisted discretely with personal care.

Care was provided according to people’s individual needs. Care plans showed staff how people preferred to receive support and how they communicated what they liked and disliked. People’s social activities, individual interests and life skills were promoted. Care was delivered in a way that ensured people’s safety and welfare. Action was taken to reduce the risk for people with challenging behaviour and with activities, such as using a trampoline and riding a horse.

Staff were supported in their roles, through supervision, training and staff meetings, which helped them to provide more effective care for people who used the service. Staff had obtained relevant qualifications, which were appropriate for their role.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. The manager and staff were knowledgeable about how to work with the safeguarding authority should there be any concerns or allegations of abuse.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment. These were analysed and acted upon to improve the service provided.