The Recovery Hub is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require personal care. The service provides care and support to up to nine people who have mental health needs. There were seven people living at the home on the day of our visit.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

Medicines were stored and administered safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to external health care professionals when required.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Support provided to people met their needs. Care plans provided information about what was important to people and how to support them. People were involved in activities of their choice.

Risks to people were assessed and where required a risk management plan was in place to support people manage an identified risk and keep the person safe.

We looked at staff recruitment records and found the provider had a safe and effective system in place for employing new staff. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and this ensured people were supported safely. Staff completed training to ensure they were suitably skilled to perform their role and were supported through a supervision programme

Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff. Staff demonstrated and in-depth understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for.

There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. Comments from people and compliments received by the provider confirmed that people were happy with the service and the support received.

The Recovery Hub is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. The service provides care and support to up to nine people who have mental health needs. There were eight people living at the home on the day of our visit. People stay at the service for around 18 months.

The inspection took place on 28 March 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in August 2014, the service was meeting the regulations inspected.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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 felt they were well supported with their mental health needs and had a good understanding of the aims of the service. They told us they were there to gain confidence, independence and to recover from their mental health issues. They also said they were achieving these aims during their time at the home.

There were systems in place to ensure that people’s rights were protected if they were assessed as not having the capacity to make informed decisions. There was guidance in place for staff to follow about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards if decisions needed were made on their behalf.

There was enough staff to support people with their mental health needs and provide a caring and effective service. People told us they were treated in a kind way by the staff. The staff engaged people in social activities, household tasks and other activities of daily living with a caring and attentive approach.

Staff knew people well and provided them with a personalised service that met their needs. Care plans clearly showed how people wanted to be supported in their recovery programmes. Staff encouraged people to make choices and encouraged people to maintain their independence and have control over their daily lives.

People were fully involved if they wanted to be in making decisions about the type of care they needed. People told us they liked the staff and the registered manager and felt well supported.

Complaints were properly investigated and they were responded to as set out by the provider’s complaints procedure. The people we spoke with knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern.

People benefited because the quality of care and service they received was properly monitored Audits and checks on the care and service were carried out as regularly as the provider’s own policy required. People living at the home were asked for their views of the service as part of the way quality was checked.

This inspection was undertaken by one Adult Social Care Inspector. At the time of the inspection six people were living at the home. The purpose of our inspection was to answer these key questions: Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

We saw that people who lived at The Recovery Hub were treated in a respectful way by the staff who supported them. We spoke with four of the six people who used the service. Everyone had positive feedback about the home and the way they were treated by the staff.

Risk to people who used the service were being managed safely. People's care records demonstrated how possible risks to people’s safety and wellbeing had been identified. The actions needed to minimise risks and to keep people safe had been clearly set out in care records. Staff also understood how to support people to take acceptable risks in their life. For example they knew their role included support for people to gain confidence in the community.

Every person we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. They also said that they felt safe in the company of the staff who supported them. People were protected by safeguarding procedures that were robust and up to date. The staff knew what to do to safeguard people who used the service from abuse.

Is the service effective?

Everyone who we spoke with told us they were happy and satisfied with how they were supported with their needs by the staff at the home.

Staff were observed assisting people in a calm and attentive way with their care and support needs. One person told us "my keyworker helps me go to town. Another comment made was “they will support me and they are courteous on the job”.

Staff demonstrated an understanding and insight into the complex mental health needs of the people who used the service. The staff we spoke with were able to tell us some example of approaches they took when they assisted people. For example they explained that they made sure they spoke calmly to people and used open and calm approach with them. We observed the manager and the two other staff on duty communicated with people using the approaches they had told us about.

Staff were properly supervised in their work to ensure they provide effective care that met people’s needs. They undertook training courses and learning opportunities about mental health issues and health and safety matters. They also went on training to understand how to protect people from the risks of abuse.

Care plans showed clearly and in detail how to support people with their range of complex mental health needs. We saw that they had been written with the involvement the person concerned. One person told us they went through their care plan with their keyworker regularly. This was done to make sure they agreed with what was in it.

Is the service caring?

Staff were observed assisting people using a caring and sensitive approach. One person told us "the staff are good”. Another comment we were told was “they have all helped me with quite a lot”. Further comments made included, “the staff have helped me with a lot, they helped me sort out a gym membership. We were also told, “it is a good place” and “my keyworker is a good man”.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they spoke with their key workers frequently and were able to talk with them about any concerns they had. One person told us “my keyworker helps me with cooking”. Every person we spoke with also told us that the registered manager spent time with them regularly to find out how they were. They told us the manager was very approachable and always listened and responded to matters they raised with them.

Regular house meetings known as, ‘get togethers’ were held at the home. The minutes confirmed people’s views were sought about the way the home was run. For example we saw that people were regularly consulted about menu plans as well as about suggestions for social activities and trips to the community.

Is the service well-led?

People who used the service spoke highly about the registered manager. One person told us that they were “lovely”. Another person said they were “very kind and always listened”. We saw people approached the manager in the office. They had an ‘open door’ policy and were attentive and made time for each person who wanted to see them.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care that people received and to ensure it was suitable. People’s views were regularly sought as part of the process of monitoring quality in the home.

During our inspection of 15 September 2013, we had found that one person’s care records failed to show how to support them safely with their complex mental health needs. This meant the person concerned had been at risk of receiving unsafe care.

We had also found that staff had not always recorded what if any action was taken after a significant incident had happened that involved people who used the service. This meant there was a risk that changes to peoples plans of care were not implemented after an incident took place.

The provider wrote to us and told us the action they would take and that they would be complaint in both of the outcome areas we had previously identified non-compliance by 1 November 2013.We conducted our most recent inspection on 21 November 2013. At this inspection we met two of the three people who used the service. Each person had positive views to share with us about the home. One person told us “it is a peaceful place and there are good staff here”.

We found that care records showed how to support people effectively with their complex mental health needs.

We also found that the provider’s system to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received was now up to date. There were records of the action was taken after a significant incident had happened that involved people who used the service. We saw that changes to people’s plans of care were put in place after an incident took place.

We spoke with the four people who were staying at the service to find out their views of The Recovery Hub. We also asked them what they felt about the staff whothat assisted them with their needs.

Each person we spoke with had positive views of the care and support they received at The Recovery Hub. One person said, “it’s very nice here very smart very up together”. We were also told, “I prefer it to my last place”, and "I get help here with everything I need, the staff are nice and they are not bossy".

Care plans and assessment records showed how to support people with their mental health needs. However one person’s care records failed to show how to support them safely with their mental health needs. This meant the person concerned was at risk of receiving unsafe and unsuitable care.

People who used the service were effectively supported to eat a varied and well balanced diet. People were actively involved in planning a choice of menus

People were supported by a sufficient number staff who were qualified and suitable to meet their needs.

People, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment. There was evidence that learning from incidents took place. However the recording of this information by the staff was not always showing what actions was taken after an incident had happened that involved people who used the service. This meant there was a risk that changes were not implemented where needed.