The inspection took place on 5 December and was announced. We gave ‘48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure staff were present at the service, as it operates during the evenings and weekends. At the previous inspection in April 2014 there were no breaches of regulation.

Woodville Respite Centre provides overnight respite accommodation and personal care for up to two people with an autistic spectrum condition. Each person has their own en-suite room on the ground floor. The accommodation is in the same building as day services, provided by The Kent

Autistic Trust and uses some of their facilities. People using the service are already known to The Kent Autistic Trust through using one of their day services. The service provided respite care for six people and two people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Staff were consistently kind, caring and compassionate, and treated people with the upmost dignity and respect. They supported people for a short period of time who, due to the nature of their disability, found it difficult to build relationships. However, staff had developed positive and trusting relationships with people and also supported people’s family members. The service had gone the ‘extra mile’ to support one person’s emotional needs. Staff had also supported another person to develop a friendship.

The service originally developed due to local need and had continuously adapted and responded in a creative ways to meet people’s individual needs. This included responding to emergency situations in people’s lives in a timely and compassionate way to ensure they received the essential support they needed. The service had successfully supported one person for an extended period of time. Their relative said, “The service have gone over and above a respite service and taken over responsibility for all his care and are developing a new service for him”.

The views of people, their relatives and staffs views were regularly sought and when shortfalls in the service had been identified, plans for improvement were put in place. Information was available about how to follow the complaints process and relatives said their concerns had been addressed which negated the need for them to make a formal complaint.

Staff knew how to identify and report any safeguarding concerns in order to help people keep safe. Checks were carried out on all staff before they supported people, to ensure that they were suitable for their role.

There were enough staff who were sufficiently qualified and competent to support the people at the service. All staff knew people well and so helped to ensure consistency of care.

There were safe systems in place for the storage and disposal of medicines. Staff received training in how to administer medicines and had their competency in this area assessed.

Staff felt extremely well supported. They received informal support from the staff team and formal supervision with the registered manager. Staff undertook regular training to ensure they had the skills and specialist knowledge to care for people effectively.

People’s health care needs were monitored and professional support and advice had been sought to promote people’s well-being.

People chose their meals according to their likes and dislikes and were involved as much as they were able in its preparation.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The service had made an application and notified us of the outcome, to ensure that people were only deprived of their liberty, when it had been assessed as law

Some of the people who used this service had limited verbal communication and therefore were not able to tell us directly about their experiences of the service. We spoke briefly with people who used the service, and observed staff supporting people with their daily activities.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People were treated with dignity and respect because staff understood how to apply these principles. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. People had been cared for in an environment that was safe and clean. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A complimentary letter from a relative stated, “Woodville provides a safe, secure and happy environment, where X is thriving. The staff are always happy to help out in any way they can”.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they used the service. Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them.

Is the service well-led?

Quality assurance processes were in place. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They said the management team were approachable. Systems were in place to ask people who used the service and their representatives for their views about the service.