89 Pavenhill is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three adults with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were two people living in the home. The home is a bungalow with a communal lounge and dining room, with an accessible kitchen. The bedrooms are spacious with shared bathrooms. The service is one of many, run by the White Horse Care Trust, within Wiltshire and Swindon.

At the last inspection in January 2016, the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was employed by the service and was present during our inspection. 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 received a person centred service which met their needs. They were supported to make choices about their daily living. People continued to have access to a variety of social activities both within the home and the local community.

The provider acted within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People continued to be cared for safely. The staff had assessed risks to people’s wellbeing and taken action to minimise these risks whilst still promoting people’s independence. There were procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns should they suspect abuse had taken place or the person was at risk of harm.

People enjoyed the food at the home and were able to make choices about what they are and drank. Staff worked alongside other health and social care professionals to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met. People’s medicines were managed and administered safely.

People were cared for by staff that were well trained, and supported to ensure they had the correct knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment practices were undertaken to check staff suitability. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

The provider carried out regular checks and audits of the service to address any risks, identify areas for development and make improvements. The service had a clear process for the handling of complaints.

89 Pavenhill provides accommodation including personal care for up to three people with a learning disability and associated health needs. The service is one of many, run by the White Horse Care Trust, within Wiltshire and Swindon. At the time of our inspection two people were living in the home. The home is on one level with a communal lounge, dining and kitchen area.

The inspection took place on 14 January 2016. This was announced inspection which meant the provider knew the day before we would be visiting. This was because the people living in the home often accessed the community and we wanted to make sure they would at home during our visit. We also wanted to make sure the manager would be available to support our inspection, or someone who could act on their behalf. During our last inspection in January 2014 we found the provider had satisfied the legal requirements in all of the areas that we looked at.

A registered manager was employed by the service. The registered manager was not present during our inspection. The day to day running of the service is overseen by an acting manager who is supported by the 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.

People told us they liked living at Pavenhill and enjoyed attending various activities both within the home and their local community. People had developed caring relationships with staff and were treated with dignity and respect. People were actively involved with their community and had developed friendships and positive relationships with people living locally.

Staff were knowledgeable about the rights of people to make their own choices and decisions. This was reflected in the way their care plans were written and the way in which staff supported and encouraged people to make decisions when delivering care and support. Staff and the acting manager had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. There was an open and transparent culture in the home and all staff were clear about how to report any concerns they had. Staff were confident that the acting manager would respond appropriately to any concerns raised. The acting manager was aware of their responsibility to respond to all safeguarding concerns and report them to the relevant agencies.

There were systems in place to ensure that staff received appropriate support, guidance and training. Staff received training which was considered mandatory by the provider and in addition, more specific training based upon people’s needs. During the inspection, there were sufficient staff available to support people effectively. Staff spent time with people and responded to their requests for support.

Arrangements were in place for keeping the home clean and hygienic to ensure people were protected from the risk of infections. During our visit we observed that bedrooms, bathrooms and communal areas were clean and tidy and free from odours.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place for the safe management of medicines.

The provider, registered manager and acting manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of service. People using the service were encouraged to share their views on the care and support they received.

There were systems in place to respond to any emergencies. Staff had access to a 24 hour on call system to enable them to seek advice in an emergency.

People were being well cared for and supported by an established staff team. Detailed care and support plans were in place were being regularly reviewed and updated when required. Peoples increasing needs were monitored and risk assessments were being kept up to date. Staff ensured they had the appropriate input from outside health professionals when this was needed.

The staffing levels were provided that ensured that needs were being met. Staff were supported to completed training that provided them with the skills to meet people’s needs.

The home had systems and procedures in place to safely store and administer medication.

At the time of our visit there was only one person living in Paven Hill care home.

We observed this person being treated with dignity and respect. We were able to observe staff being responsive to the needs of this individual in a supportive way that was in keeping with the guidance in their support plan.

The person living at Paven Hill was not able to tell us directly about the care and support provided. The person had a life book which detailed events and trips that had taken place. Using this book we were able to ask the person about trips out and if they had enjoyed them. The person was able to recognise various events and responded yes to our questions. The person told us that they liked staff and that they were helpful.

The person living at Paven Hill had a personalised communication book to support them to make food choices each day. The booked contained pictures of all their known favourite foods which was used at each meal time.

Staff received appropriate training and support. The training matrix and supervision records were up to date. We spoke with one member of staff who told us that they felt supported by management and were able to express opinions and raise concerns.

The provider had effective monitoring systems in place to assess the quality of the service provided. We saw that the deputy manager and senior management undertook regular quality assurance checks.