This inspection was announced and carried out on 12, 14 and 15 June 2017. We last inspected in March 2015 and the service was rated as good. We found at this inspection that the service remained good.

The Whinnies is a care home which provides support and care for up to three people with learning and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were three people using the service.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and prevent harm from occurring. The staff were confident they could raise any concerns about poor practice in the service and these would be addressed to ensure people were protected from harm.

Staffing levels were organised to ensure people received adequate support to meet their needs throughout the day and night. Recruitment records demonstrated there were systems in place to employ staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People’s medicines were managed by staff who were trained and had their competency checked to make sure people received their medicines safely.

Staff received day to day support from senior staff to ensure they carried out their roles effectively through mentoring and guidance. Supervision processes were in place to enable staff to receive feedback on their performance and identify further training needs. Supervision of some staff was overdue and action was taken after inspection to ensure this was in place.

People could make choices about their food and drinks and alternatives were offered if requested. People were given support to eat and drink where this was required.

Arrangements were in place to request external health and social care services to help keep people well. External professionals’ advice was sought when needed and incorporated into people’s care plans.

Staff demonstrated they had an awareness and knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The service had made suitable applications for people who may be deprived of their liberty. 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.

Staff provided care and support with kindness and compassion; we saw smiles and positive interaction between people and staff. People could make choices about how they wanted to be supported and staff listened to what they had to say.

People were treated with respect. Staff understood how to provide care in a dignified manner and respected people’s right to privacy and to make choices. The staff team knew the care and support needs of people well and took an interest in people and their families to provide individualised care.

People had their needs assessed and staff knew how to support people according to their preferences and choices. Care records showed that changes were made in response to requests from people using the service, relatives and external health and social care professionals. The provider had commenced work on the introduce new documentation to improve care records’ An action plan was sent to us after inspection confirming this would be completed in the next eight weeks.

People were supported to enjoy a range of individual activities inside and outside the service.

The home had a registered manager and senior staff who were accessible. There were systems in place to make sure the service learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and investigations. . The provider submitted statutory notifications in a timely manner. When we identified areas for improvement around care records and staff supervision the regis

People who used the service were unable to talk to us about their experience of living at the Whinnies. The SOFI we carried out showed people received care and support which met their needs. Staff engaged positively with people and encouraged their participation and involvement in the day-to-day running of the home.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people’s safety and welfare. People’s needs had been assessed and support plans had been devised which made sure staff knew how their needs should be met.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff said they had been told what measures they should take to prevent the spread of infection. They said they had access to the personal protective equipment they needed to keep themselves safe, and that they had received appropriate training as part of their induction.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had received the training they needed to provide people with safe care which met their needs.

People were made aware of the complaints system. This was provided in a format that met their needs.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of the three people using the service who all had complex needs.

With the input of the care staff, two people were able to tell us that they were happy; felt safe and well looked after. We observed their enthusiasm and enjoyment of what was happening around them and their involvement with daily activities and events.

We also saw written survey results and feedback from relatives and visiting professionals. Comments included, “XX is always well looked after and looks comfy”; “XX is always comfortable, happy and well presented”; and, ”He regards the Whinnies as his home”.

This inspection was unannounced and carried out on 17 March 2015. A second, announced day of inspection took place on 23 March 2015. We had last inspected the service on 20 June 2013 and at that inspection we found there were no breaches of legal requirements.

The Whinnies is a care home which provides support and care for up to three people with learning and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were two people using the service.

A registered manager was in place, and our records showed she had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2010. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and the relative we spoke with told us the home was a safe place to live. During our time in the home we saw people were relaxed in their environment and with the staff who supported them.

Staff had received training in identifying and protecting people from abuse and were able to tell us the procedures and policies that they would follow if they had any concerns about how people were being treated. Processes and procedures were in place to manage people’s finances safely and staff’s contact with people’s monies was monitored to ensure it was appropriate.

Risks had been assessed and where possible actions had been taken to reduce the likelihood of these risks presenting themselves. Accidents and incidents were recorded and the manager told us there was a system in place to review any accidents or incidents to identify if any trends were emerging.

Plans were in place to deal with emergencies such as a fire within the home, and these plans were practiced with people who used the service and staff on a regular basis so people and staff knew how to respond. Each person who used the service had their own detailed emergency evacuation plan which took into consideration their communication needs and the way they responded to emergencies. These plans provided staff with valuable information designed to be used in a time critical situation.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and processes were in place to cover any short notice staff shortages due to sickness. Appropriate checks had been carried out before staff started working within the home, to ensure they had the necessary experience to work with people and they were of good character.

Medicines were managed appropriately. Staff had been trained and their competency to administer medication safely had been assessed.

The service was effective. Staff training was monitored, and we saw all essential care and safety training was up to date. In addition, staff had undertaken training courses based on the individual needs of people who used the service and staff we talked with spoke highly of the training opportunities and the support they received. Supervision sessions, where staff met with senior staff members to discuss their performance, were held regularly. There was an annual appraisal system in place and evidence to show that appraisals were up to date.

Staff understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and they were able to tell us how they applied this in practice. Actions had been taken to ensure that people were not unnecessarily or unlawfully deprived of their liberty and records showed that the MCA had been applied correctly.

We observed people were asked for their consent throughout our visit, and records showed people had signed their care records where they were able to. People were able to make choices about their care and about how they lived their lives.

Through our observations we saw staff had good relationships with people who used the service. Staff knew people well and we watched staff sharing jokes with people. People who used the service and a relative told us staff were kind.

Information was presented in a way that people could understand. Throughout our visit we saw staff explain things to people clearly and they checked people’s understanding. All of the information in people’s care plans and displayed within the home was in an ‘Easy Read’ format which included pictures to help people understand the information. One person who used the service had used an independent advocate known as an IMCA. An IMCA’s role is to support people who lack capacity to make important decisions about their care. We saw the IMCA had been contacted and acted on the person’s behalf in some key decisions they had made.

Staff treated people were treated with dignity and respect, and care records promoted people’s right to privacy. People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independent skills. They worked with staff to identify goals to work towards over a six to 12 month period. Their progress was monitored and successes celebrated as they achieved tasks whilst working towards their goals.

Care records were clear and specific to people’s needs, providing a good level of detail, so that staff had the information to support people consistently. People’s health needs were monitored and records showed they attended appointments with a range of healthcare professionals such as GP’s, dentists and opticians at least once a year, and more frequently where their needs changed.

People took part in a range of activities both inside the home and within the community. They accessed local groups, took part in arts and crafts classes and met with friends and family.

People had been given information about how to make a complaint if they needed to, however no complaints had been made in the 12 months prior to our inspection. The relative we spoke with told us they had never needed to make a complaint. We saw from the home’s compliments book that staff from other homes and healthcare professionals had recorded positive details about their experiences with the home.

The relative we spoke with told us that the registered manager was “very good”, and staff told us the organisation was supportive. Systems were in place to ensure that staff were aware of key policies, procedures and emergency plans before they worked in the home without the manager or senior support worker. A 24 hours on-call telephone line was in place so staff could contact a manager whenever they needed one.

The manager monitored the quality of the service through regular checks and audits. We saw people and staff were asked for their feedback about how the service was performing.

The home had strong links with other care services and the local community. They held events within their grounds where local groups and people who lived close to the service were invited to attend. The grounds of the home were extensive and other care services were allocated land they used for allotments. The manager and staff told us about the positive impact this had had, on people who used the service as it had broadened their social experiences.