We carried out an announced inspection of Turning Point - Mason’s Road on 5 July 2017. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice so we could be sure people would be available to speak with us.

The service provides accommodation, care and support for up to four people with learning disabilities. There were two gentlemen living at Masons Road when we visited. Each person had their own flat with bedroom, lounge and kitchen.

At the last inspection in October 2015, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

During the day there were two members of staff on duty which meant people received one to one support and were able to choose how they spent their day. People approached staff when they needed support and staff responded in a caring and friendly way.

Risks relating to people’s care had been identified and assessed according to people’s individual needs and abilities. Staff knew how to keep people safe and to report any concerns they had about people’s health or wellbeing. The provider’s recruitment procedures ensured staff were of a suitable character to work with people who lived there

Staff had the skills and training to meet people’s needs and received support to carry out their roles effectively. Staff had a good understanding of how to respond to people’s physical, emotional and social needs. They respected people’s routines and preferences and knew how to manage people’s anxieties and behaviours to promote their emotional well-being. Staff were knowledgeable and supportive in assisting people to communicate and listened to what they said.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received support to maintain their health and received their medicines when they needed them. People chose what they wanted to eat, and staff encouraged them to have a healthy diet.

The provider carried out regular checks to ensure people received safe care that met their individual needs and preferences. Staff felt valued and listened to and spoke positively about the management of the service at local and provider level.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We conducted an unannounced inspection of Mason’s Road on 5 October 2015. The service provides care and support for up to four people with learning disabilities. There were two gentlemen using the service when we visited. Each person had their own flat with bedroom, lounge and kitchen.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

During the day there were two members of staff on duty which meant people received one to one support. Staff told us the staffing levels enabled them to spend time with people and respond to requests for assistance without delay.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were able to explain the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns. All necessary checks had been completed before new staff started work at the home to make sure, as far as possible, they were safe to work with the people who lived there. Risk assessments around the provision of care and support had been carried out and action taken to reduce any identified risks. There were systems to ensure that medicines were stored and administered safely.

New staff completed a thorough induction programme when they started work. Staff received training and had regular supervision and appraisal meetings in which their performance and development was discussed.

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The provider had made applications to the local authority in accordance with the DoLS and at the time of our visit was awaiting the outcome of those applications.

People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took account of their preferences and where necessary, their nutritional needs were monitored. People were supported effectively with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals.

People were supported in a range of activities, both together and on an individual basis. Activities outside the home enabled people to be part of their local community.

Staff were caring and encouraged people to work towards goals that helped them retain their independence. People were supported to make decisions about their flats and had been involved in choosing how they were decorated.

Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Care plans included information on maintaining the person’s health, their daily routines and preferences.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and by each other. Both staff and people were given opportunities to make suggestions on how the service was run. The service carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of the service and to plan improvements. Where concerns were identified, action plans were put in place to rectify these.

Some people had complex communication needs and were not able to verbally communicate with us. We therefore used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. This included talking with people, looking at records and observing the care being delivered.

We saw that care staff knew people well and spoke with them in a friendly, respectful way.

We saw that staff were sensitive to people's needs and offered them support when assistance was requested or indicated.

A family member we spoke with told us, "They look after X well.

People were supported to take part in recreational activities that were interesting and stimulating so that they had a meaningful lifestyle. People were able to choose what activities to be involved in. This included shopping, social clubs, day centres and the option to attend college.

Systems were in place to ensure that medicines were managed appropriately on people's behalf.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people's care and support needs. Staff were positive about working for the organisation. We were told they had received the relevant training to provide effective care for people who used the service.

We saw that complaints processes were in place for people to use if they were not happy with the service provided.

On the day of our visit on 25 April 2012, we met with the two people using the service and two members of staff on duty at the home. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us what it was like living at Masons Road. We spent time observing staff interaction and talking with staff about how they meet the needs of the people they support. We spoke with one relative of a person who was living at the home.

We found that staff knew people as individuals and understood their personal needs and ways of communicating those needs. Staff treated people kindly and respectfully and included them in conversation, asking for their input. People appeared relaxed and happy in the company of the staff.

We looked at the care planning documentation to see what guidance was given to staff, to ensure that people received their care as required to meet their needs. We wanted to know if systems were in place to offer this in a safe way. We found that care plans were detailed and demonstrated that staff understood each person as an individual. Risk areas were identified in both cases, with plans in place on how to minimise and manage these.

People who were able to, told us they enjoyed staying at the home and liked it there. One person was at college during our visit but we were able to speak with them before leaving the home. The other person using the service mainly stays at the home during the day but does go out on visits with family members and accompanied visits to Stratford upon Avon town.

People told us they liked their meals and indicated that they were happy with their bedrooms. One person’s room was decorated in an armed forces theme and the person living there showed us their collection of military models. They were very pleased with their bedroom and said they liked it very much. We asked both people living at the home if they liked the food and both said “yes.”

Discussions with staff clearly evidenced they were committed to their work and strived to promote positive outcomes for the people in their care.

Comments included, “I am happy working here, it is a relaxed atmosphere” and “I really enjoy working here and really enjoy looking after the people living here.”

The home had procedures in place for monitoring the service they provided. This should ensure that any problems are identified and improvements, where required, are made.