This inspection took place on 24 May 2017 and was announced. A previous inspection, undertaken in December 2014, found there were no breaches of legal requirements and rated the service as Good overall. At this inspection we found the home was continuing to meet all legal requirements.

The Mews is purpose built bungalow situated on the outskirts of Blyth, Northumberland. It is registered to accommodate a maximum of four people and provides care to people who have a learning and physical disability. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of the inspection there were four people using the service.

The home had a registered manager who had been registered since August 2011. 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.

Safeguarding procedures were in place. There had been no recent safeguarding matters formally investigated. The premises were effectively maintained and safety checks undertaken on a regular basis, including checks with regard to fire safety. Risk assessments were in place related to the environment and the delivery of care.

Appropriate staffing levels were maintained to support the needs of people living at the home. Suitable recruitment procedures and checks were in place to ensure staff employed at the home had the correct skills and experience. Medicines at the home were managed and administered safely and effectively. People were supported to access adequate food and drink and we observed staff followed health professional guidance when preparing meals.

Staff said they were able to access the training they required and records confirmed mandatory training was up to date. Staff told us, and records confirmed there were regular supervision sessions and that they had an annual appraisal.

The registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Three people currently living at the home had restrictions in place linked to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions then best interests decisions had been taken and documented.

People had access to health care professionals to help maintain their wellbeing and staff responded to any health concerns. There was a homely feel to the building, although some decoration was in need of updating and access and facilities in the garden could be further developed. We have made a recommendation about this.

Relatives and professionals we spoke with told us they felt the care was good, personal and responsive to people’s needs. Questionnaire responses from relatives of people living at the home indicated the service as good. We observed positive relationships between people and staff. Staff demonstrated a genuine interest in people as individuals and were empathetic in their approach. People were treated with dignity and respect.

People had individualised care plans that addressed their identified needs. Reviews of care needs involved individuals and family members, as appropriate. Individuals were supported to engage in a range of events and activities linked to their interests, both with the home and in the community. No formal complaints had been received in the previous 12 months.

The registered manager showed us records confirming regular checks and audits were carried out at the home. Staff and professionals were positive about the leadership of the home and the registered manager, who they said had a good understanding of people’s needs. The provider was meeting legal requirements in relation to notifying the CQC of events and displaying their current quality rating. Records were complete and up to date.

Three people had difficulty communicating verbally with us because of the nature of their disability. However, we observed how they responded to us and the staff team which indicated that they enjoyed living at The Mews.

We concluded that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We found that people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. They were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink.

We concluded that there was enough equipment to promote the independence and comfort of people who used the service.

Staff were confident and professional as they went about their work. We found that they received appropriate training for their professional development, supervision and appraisal.

People’s personal records and those relating to staff and the management of the home were accurate and fit for purpose.

The home provided care and support to four people at the time of our inspection. They were unable to tell us their views, however, we observed how they were supported and cared for and checked how well staff understood their care needs.

We found people were treated with dignity and respect and their rights to make decisions were promoted as far as possible. We found ample evidence to show their views were sought about all aspects of their care and support, whether these were ‘big’ decisions, such as where to go on holiday or minor decisions, such as whether they wanted mayonnaise on their lunch and whether they wanted to squeeze the mayonnaise bottle themselves or have staff do this for them.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care requirements and understood each person’s individual communication style, which was especially important where people could not communicate verbally. We saw that staff understood people’s body language and that they made every effort to provide people with choices with all aspects of their lives.

We found staff actively promoted people’s rights to express opinions and raise concerns. Staff used creative methods, such as pictures and photographs, to help people communicate.

We found medications were handled safely. The provider operated effective recruitment and selection procedures to help ensure the staff were of good character, and had the right skills and aptitude to support vulnerable people.

The people using the service at the time of the visit were unable to tell us what they thought about living at the Mews as they did not communicate verbally with people they did not know. We observed that they communicated well with staff and appeared happy and relaxed with them as they knew the staff team well.

This inspection took place on 19 and 29 December 2014 and was unannounced. The last inspection of the service was carried out on 3 July 2013. The service was compliant with all the regulations we examined at that time.

The Mews is registered to accommodate a maximum of four people and provides care to people who have a learning and physical disability. Nursing care is not provided. Four people were accommodated at The Mews at the time of our visit.

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.

Relatives and visiting professionals were very complimentary about the service. For example, one relative said, “The staff are very nice, they are always welcoming at any time of the day and very, very caring. (Name) is very happy there, there are no problems it is brilliant”. One of the visiting professionals we spoke with told us “It is very well run as far as I can see. There is low staff sickness so care is consistent, it is really very good.” Another professional said, “They do very well in all areas.”

The premises were well presented and safe for people to live in. The provider and the registered manager ensured standards of the premises and care were maintained. Staff were recruited appropriately, were well trained and knowledgeable about people’s needs. The staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs and the staff worked well as a team. Medicines were managed safely. Risks were identified and managed well in order that people’s independence was promoted and they could safely enjoy participating in their chosen activities.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were being followed. The service ensured that people’s rights were protected by making sure they were represented appropriately.

People were supported to enjoy a nutritious diet that suited their needs and preferences.

Staff had a caring and reassuring approach. People’s privacy and dignity was upheld at all times. Relatives told us they felt involved in people’s care as appropriate.

People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and reviewed by involving people and their representatives. Staff had a good understanding of people as individuals and care was provided in a way that was tailored to individual needs and choices. For example, we saw people's meals were prepared in accordance with their plan of care and their food preferences were taken into account at the time each meal was made.

People were supported to be part of the community; they used local shops, attended day services, college, went bowling and, for the more adventurous, a sky diving activity had been arranged. Complaints procedures were clear and readily available. The service had received no concerns but many compliments from people, their staff and other groups that were surveyed.

A strong management team gave good leadership. The service had a registered manager and a team of senior staff. The provider, and the registered manager, had effective systems for checking and maintaining the quality of the service. The staff clearly understood and practised the provider’s standards and values. This was evident from the comments of relatives and care professionals. In addition, the service had recently been nominated for several awards in connection with the quality of the care provided and had been successful in winning some of these.