This inspection took place on 6 and 7 December 2016. The registered manager was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection as people that live there are often out during the day.

The Kent Autistic Trust - 118 Beaver Lane provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with an autistic spectrum condition. At the time of the inspection there were six people living at the service. Accommodation is provided on two levels. It is set in a residential street in Ashford, within easy reach of local shops, doctors’ surgery and pubs. One person lives in a flat on the ground floor, which can be accessed from the house, but has its own front door. The ground floor also contains another flat and one bedsit for another person, both choose to use the communal facilities of the main house. In addition there are three single bedrooms with ensuite toilets and wash hand basins on the second floor. There is a communal bathroom and a shower room, kitchen, laundry and lounge/diner, which have doors to the enclosed garden at the rear of the property. There is parking available at the service as well as on street parking.

The management of the service was overseen by a board of trustees for The Kent Autistic Trust. Trustees and the chief executive officer for the trust visited the service regularly.

The service has 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 received their medicines when they should and medicines were handled safely. Staff took a proactive and ‘can do’ attitude and approach to risk and as a result people were enabled to do the things they wanted to in a safe way, such as going on holiday to a theme park in France.

The service provided outstanding care and support to people enabling them to live as fulfilled and meaningful lives as possible. People, relatives and professionals were universally positive about the service received.

The service was innovative and used assistive technology to enable people to be as independent as possible, such as sensory mats and key pads. People were able to have privacy and independence with staff accessible nearby. Those that had previously challenged services were able to live their life to their fullest potential.

The leadership and coaching provided by the registered manager and provider’s team ensured that staff had a full understanding of people’s support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them. Training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. The provider worked with other organisations to ensure staff received current and best practice training and information. Staff were very positive about the support they received from managers and enjoyed working for the provider. All staff demonstrated passion and commitment to providing the best possible care and opportunities for people to live life to the full.

People had positive relationships with support staff that knew them well. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and give individual care and support. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them and went out and about into the local and wider community as they wished.

There was a strong emphasis on person centred care. People were supported to plan their support where possible and they received a service that was based on their individual needs and wishes. The service was flexible and responded to changes in people’s needs.

Care plans detailed people preferred routines, their wishes and preferences. They detailed what people were able to do for themselves and what support was required from staff to aid their independence wherever possible. People wer

In this report the name of two registered managers appears, one who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

We visited the home at 8am and spoke with three people, two in some detail and spoke with two staff members and the registered manager.

People said they enjoyed their life at Beaver Lane. One person said ‘I have been here (many) years and I have like it at all times. I like to Hoover my flat’. Another person told us ‘I used to get upset in the past, but not so much now. (The staff and I) we get on well’. They said that the manager was ‘A great supporter to us all’.

We were told by a person that staff were ‘Polite, smile and are civil’. We observed that staff were friendly, provided enough time for people to make their choices and always obtained consent before giving support. We saw there was always enough staff available.

We saw that paperwork on how to support people was up to date and easy to use. There was a strong focus on people being supported to do things and develop skills. Where people had special dietary support needs, there were clear plans and actions to make sure these needs were met.

The premises were in good condition. There was some wear and tear in the kitchen, but plans had been put in place to refurbish this and utility room within the next 12 months.

At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the service. People told us they liked living at the service. One person told us “the staff are helpful”. A person told us they could talk to any of the staff if they needed to and that they would help to sort a problem out. We saw that people had their social needs met and we saw that people were involved in making decisions about their care and day to day needs.

We saw that strategies to manage people’s behaviour that might place them at risk of harm were documented. We noted that decisions made to promote people's safety were not always documented showing how people's human rights were being upheld. We saw that staff were able to demonstrate that they recognised a potential safeguarding concern and the action to take.

We spoke with a relative who told us that their relative's needs were met by the staff at the service. They added that the staff “do listen” to what family members suggest, however ideas were not always implemented. The staff did not always inform them of changes to members of staff but they were helpful when they contacted the service to enquire how their relative was doing. Another relative told us that overall the service met their relatives’ needs and staff had completed training on sign language to promote communication with their relative.