The inspection took place on 25 July 2018 and was unannounced.

Winslow Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 26 people with learning disabilities or autism. Accommodation and care is provided across three units set around two courtyards. At the time of our inspection visit, 13 people were living at the home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service is required to have a registered manager and there was 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.

At the last inspection on 1 September 2015, the service was rated 'Good.' At this inspection, we found the service remained 'Good.' This inspection report is written in a shorter format, because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People told us they continued to feel safe with staff and the support they provided at Winslow Court. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse, discrimination and avoidable harm. Risks to people continued to be managed in a way that protected them and kept them safe from avoidable harm. The provider had systems in place to ensure they reflected on any shortcomings and that improvements were made.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent and experienced staff deployed to meet people's needs, who supported people in a way that was respectful and compassionate. People’s dietary requirements were assessed and people were provided with sufficient food and drink.

Staff and the registered manager understood their responsibilities with regards to the protection of people’s rights and what to do when someone did not have the capacity to make their own decisions. People told us they were listened to by staff and felt able to voice their opinions.

People’s relatives and community professionals were able to express their views on the service and to participate in care planning and reviews. People continued to receive a responsive service that reflected their assessed care and support needs. People continued to be involved in activities of their choice.

Staff told us they felt valued and appreciated by the provider, and were confident that they would be listened to if they raised any concerns with a management about the service. Systems were in place, which enabled the provider to monitor the safety and quality of care provided to people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Winslow Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 26 people with learning disabilities or autism. Care is provided across four bungalows, Larch, Upper Oak, Pine and Hawthorns. The bungalows are set around two courtyards and separated by a gate. At the time of our inspection extensive refurbishment was underway and the provider had reduced occupancy to 21.

This inspection took place on 1 September 2015 and was unannounced.

At the time of the inspection there was 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.

People were protected from danger, harm and abuse because staff had received training so they were able to identify and report any concerns.

People were involved in planning their own care and staff understood how to support them. Staff used alternative ways to communicate if people could not understand what was being said or if they were unable to verbally say what they wanted.

People were supported to make their own choices about their home, care and support. When people were assessed as not having the capacity to make certain decisions about their care staff ensured that decisions were made in their best interests to protect their human rights. People took part in hobbies and interests in and outside of the bungalows and were able to pursue individual interests. Staffing levels were based on the needs of people and was regularly reviewed.

People and families are encouraged to give their opinions about the care that they or their relatives receive. The registered manager and staff had an open, honest and positive culture. Staff were supported by the registered manager and bungalow managers and received regular one-to-one. Staff and had access to training and time is allocated for staff to update their skills. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care provided and improvements were made when necessary.

This was an unannounced inspection on 1 December 2014. The home provides accommodation for up to 32 people who have a learning disability. There were 32 people living at the home when we visited and there was not 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’. The person managing this service had applied to become its registered manager. Following this inspection the person was registered as manager.

At the previous inspection no improvements were identified as being necessary.

Most people were not able to talk with us about their care and treatment due to their communication needs. We observed how people approached and interacted with staff. We saw people were comfortable and confident when they did so. Staff showed they understood people’s needs and preferences and talked to us about each person in detail.

Staff told us about how they kept people safe. We saw that staff were available to meet people’s care and social needs.

We saw that people’s privacy and dignity were respected. The care provided took into account people’s preferences as well as their relative’s suggestions. The provider had taken guidance and advice from other professionals such as social workers.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provisions of the MCA are used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own about the care or treatment they receive. At the time of our inspection one person was subject to DoLS.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and care planned and delivered to meet their needs. People had access to healthcare professionals such as doctors and dentists.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. Snacks and drinks were available during the day and people had choices at mealtimes. Where people had special dietary needs we saw that these were provided for.

Staff were provided with training that reflected the care needs of people who lived at the home. Staff told us that they would raise concerns with the manager and were confident that any concerns were dealt with appropriately.

The provider had taken steps to assess and monitor the quality of care provided at home which took account of people’s preferences and the views of relatives and other professionals. These had been used to make changes that benefitted the people living at the home.

We talked with some of people who lived in the home and they said that they were well looked after. They said the staff always asked them how they would like things to be done. They said staff always considered their privacy and treated them with respect.

People told us that they felt able to talk with the managers or staff if they had any concerns. Staff talked about how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People said that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, “They spoil me” and another said, “I go out lots”.

In December 2011 we issued two compliance actions about staffing levels and staff following care plans. The provider told us of improvements made. We visited to check compliance and to carry out a routine inspection.

We used a number of methods to understand people’s experience as they were not all able to tell us their views. We spoke with three people living at the home and two visitors. We observed staff interaction with six people. We spoke with six staff and four managers; looked at care records for three people, records about staff and the running of the home.

People led active lives. Staff interaction was friendly. One person said “I love living here. The food is great.” People took part activities and had individual support when they wanted it. Compliance was achieved as care plans were followed. Families and professionals made best interest care and treatment decisions. Systems planned for people’s needs when admitted and when they used services in the community.

Necessary checks were made to ensure staff were fit to work at the home. Compliant systems were put in place to maintain adequate staffing levels and timely professional development, however people experienced a high turnover of staff.

Visitors told us: “They really look after x well. The key worker did a good job making their bedroom interesting.“ There were systems to adequately maintain the premises and grounds as well as to act on and learn from any incidents, comments or complaints.

People were taking part in some daily life tasks but there was scope to increase people’s level of involvement. Planned improvements to the environment should help this. There was a good range of activities provided and choices were offered.

There were systems in place to plan how to meet people’s support needs including their complex behavioural needs. On the whole these were working effectively but some shortfalls were found. There were plans to change the way the service was run to make staffing more flexible and to put people living in the home at the heart of the service.

There were systems in place to plan for people’s health care needs and health professionals were appropriately involved. People’s representatives were involved in health decisions to make sure they were in people’s best interests. Health record keeping could be improved.

People were supported by a committed staff team who had been trained for their role. There was scope to improve the support and guidance given to staff to help them provide the best possible care.

On some occasions there had not been enough support staff to offer people the level of attention they need for their wellbeing or to take part in all their planned activities. The registered manager and the owners were now taking steps to speed up the recruitment of new staff.

The management of the home had remained stable and checks were carried out by the owners to help monitor standards. These had not always resulted in problems being addressed quickly enough to stop them having a negative impact on people living in the home.