On the day of our inspection we met the manager of the home who had been in post since February 2014. They told us they were in the process of applying to register as the manager of the service.In this report the name of the last registered managers appear. They were not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this service at the time of this inspection. Their names appear because they were still registered managers on our register at the time of the inspection. After the inspection the provider sent us notifications to cancel the previous managers registrations.
At the time of our inspection two people lived at the home. The service was registered to provide support to people with learning disabilities and/or autism.
Previously, we completed an inspection in November 2013, where we found the provider was not meeting requirements for outcome 10: Safety and suitability of premises.
After the last inspection, the provider sent us an action plan. This told us the action the provider would take to make the necessary improvements and by what date.
At this inspection we checked whether required improvements had been made since the last inspection. We also completed a combined scheduled inspection and looked at other essential standards of care.
We found that the provider had made the necessary improvements with respect to the safety and suitability of the premises. There was one outstanding action. The provider told us that remaining carpets would be replaced by July 2014.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection. We spoke with the two people who used the service and two members of staff. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
The two people we spoke with told us they felt safe. They told us that care staff met their care and support needs and they felt safe when staff supported them in their home.
We found that policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. This is legislation that makes provision relating to persons who lack capacity, and how decisions should be made in their best interests when they do so. At the time of our inspection no applications had needed to be made.
We saw that risk management plans were up-to-date and staff said they received updates when people's needs changed. This was intended to ensure that people were not put at unnecessary risk. Staff were able to tell us about risk management plans for people who used the service. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure staff had information they needed so that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.
Is the service effective?
We found that people had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. Assessments included people's health needs and detailed information on their support needs to include promoting their independence. Both people told us they were working towards moving into their own flats. They were clear of their goals and what they needed to do to achieve them. We saw this information was clearly documented in their support plans. This was intended to ensure that people's individual care needs were met.
People had access to a range of health care professionals. We saw information on health appointments people had attended in the community.
Is the service caring?
We asked people who used the service for their opinions about the staff that supported them. One person told us: 'I am happy with the staff. I can talk to them. I feel relaxed' and another person told us: 'I like staff they are nice'. We observed that staff had positive and warm relationships with people who used the service.
Both people said their preferences, interests and diverse needs were being met. We found this information was recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.
People we spoke with told us that they felt their privacy and dignity were always respected by care staff. One person told us: 'Staff always knock before they come into my room. I can talk to them [staff]. I feel relaxed'.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that people attended weekly house meetings to talk about things they wanted to do and talk about house related issues. We saw examples of where people's comments had been addressed by staff. For example changes were made to menus in line with people's preferences. One person decided they didn't want to go swimming and staff supported them to find alternative healthy activities to take part in.
People took part in regular reviews about their care and support needs. This was documented in the care records we looked at. We saw that staff were well informed about changes to people's support needs.
Is the service well-led?
We found that the service had a quality assurance system in place to ensure the quality of the service continuously improved.
The manager told us they received good support from their management team and had no concerns about the operational running of the home. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and had effective working relationships with their team.