Wheatsheaf House is a residential care home registered to provide care to eight people who have a learning disability. Seven people were living at the service on the day of our inspection.

This inspection was undertaken by one inspector on 9 March 2017. At the last inspection on 9 December 2014 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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. However, the registered manager was on maternity leave at the time of this inspection. The deputy manager was providing day to day management of the service and a registered manager from one of the organisation's services was also providing management support during the week.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service and to keep them safe. This included safeguarding, eating and drinking, mobility needs and accessing the community.

There was sufficient numbers of staff on duty to safely assist and support people. The recruitment and selection procedure ensured that only suitable staff were recruited.to work with people using the service.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have choice and control over their lives as much as possible. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s needs were assessed, so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. The management staff and care staff talked knowledgeably and enthusiastically about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. Staff offered people choices, for example, how they spent their day and what they wanted to eat. These choices were respected.

People experienced a good quality of life because staff received training that gave them the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People were supported and assisted with their daily routines, shopping and accessing places of interest in the community.

People received appropriate support to maintain a healthy diet and be able to choose and help prepare their meals. People had access to a range of health care professionals, when they needed them.

Staff were clear about the values of the service in relation to providing people with compassionate care in a dignified and respectful manner. Staff knew what was expected of them and we observed staff putting these values into practice during our inspection.

The provider had a range of systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People had been consulted about how they wished their care to be delivered and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were asked for their feedback about the quality of the service provided. Feedback was used to recognise good practice and to drive improvements where shortfalls were identified.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This unannounced inspection was carried out on 09 December 2014. The last inspection took place on 14 October 2013, during which we found the regulations were being met.

Wheatsheaf House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people who have a learning disability. Nursing care is not provided. There were six people living in the home when we visited.

At the time of our inspection 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.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that people’s rights were being protected as DoLS applications were in progress where required and had been submitted to the relevant local authorities.

We saw that people who lived in the home were assisted by staff in a way that supported their safety and that they were treated respectfully. People had health care and support plans in place to ensure that staff were aware of their care needs. These plans recorded for staff people’s individual choices, their likes and dislikes and any assistance they required. Risks to people who lived in the home were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to minimise these risks and enable people to live as safely and independently as possible.

Staff cared for people in a warm and sensitive way. Staff were assisting people with personal care, cooking and domestic tasks throughout our visit to the home.

Members of staff were trained to provide effective and safe care which met people’s individual needs and wishes. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge through regular supervision, appraisals and ongoing training.

People felt able to raise any suggestions or concerns they might have with the registered manager. People felt listened to and reported that communications with the registered manager and members of staff was very good.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. People who lived in the home and their relatives were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided.

During our inspection of Wheatsheaf House on 14 October 2013, we found that people who lived there were involved in setting their own personal goals and in planning how their care needs were met. One person told us: “This is my home and I am happy here”.

We found that care records were current and reflected the needs of people who lived in the home.

Safeguarding policies to protect vulnerable adults were in place and staff had undertaken safeguarding training.

There were systems in place to check that people were satisfied with the care and support they received and regular audits undertaken to monitor the quality of the services provided.

There was an effective system in place to deal with any complaints or concerns people who lived in the home or their relatives might raise.

As the main purpose of this inspection was to assess improvements made in relation to shortfalls identified during our previous visit on 31 October 2012, we did not request information directly from people using the service on this occasion.

Overall we found that the provider had taken sufficient action to address the shortfalls identified at our previous inspection in relation to the premises of the home and to staff training.

One person we spoke with told us, “I love it here, the staff are good, they are all nice to me”. They went on to tell us that they particularly enjoyed their summer holidays in Norfolk with staff. They told us they got on well with other people living in the home and loved the pet cat very much. One relative we spoke with reported that quality of care at the home was very good. She stated, “My brother always seems very happy there, I have no concerns whatsoever, staff always do their best for him”.

The health and social care professionals who we spoke with told us they would recommend the home as a place to live. One stated, “People get good support and staff are very caring”. One care manager from the local learning disability partnership reported, “Everything seems to run along nicely there. They keep in close contact with us and ring us if there’s ever a problem to discuss it; I have no concerns about the service.”

We found the provider was compliant in four of the six outcomes we assessed. Although people received good care from staff who knew them well, improvements were required in relation to the maintenance and cleanliness of the premises, and in relation to staff training.

We spoke with four people who use the service when we visited on 19 September 2011. They were complimentary and positive about the support they received and were fully involved in the daily running of the home. We observed the staff to have a friendly, caring and respectful attitude when giving assistance to people using the service. Two people showed us their bedrooms and advised that their choices and individual preferences were being met.