10a-10b Station Road is a care home situated in the Hatfield area of Doncaster. The home can accommodate up to six people. The service is provided by Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust. At the time of our inspection the home was providing residential care for four people who were living with a learning disability.

The inspection took place on 25 January 2018 and was announced. We gave the registered provider very short notice of our inspection as we wanted to make sure someone would be at the service on the day of our inspection. At the last inspection in September 2015, the service was rated Good. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘10a-10b Station Road’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why the service is rated Good.

At the time of our 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.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risks associated with people’s care were identified and plans were in place to minimise the risk from occurring. People’s records were stored securely and available to relevant staff. Premises and equipment were maintained well. There were enough staff available to ensure people’s needs were met and their interests were maintained. Medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed.

Staff were trained and had the skills they required to carry out their role. People received a healthy diet which they had been involved in choosing. People were supported to live healthy lifestyles and had access to relevant healthcare professionals as required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw that there was a lot of appropriate and friendly banter between people who used the service and the staff team. We saw that staff respected people and ensured their dignity was maintained.

People received care which was person centred and met their needs. People had access to the community and were involved in activities of their choice. The service had a complaints procedure and this was available in an easy to read format.

Staff spoke highly of the management team and felt supported by them. Audits took place to ensure the registered provider’s policies and procedures were being adhered to. People were given opportunities to voice their opinions and views and be involved in how the service was run.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on 14 September 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection April 2014 the service was judged compliant with the regulations inspected.

10a-10b Station Road is two bungalows situated in Hatfield, Doncaster which is registered to take up to six people. The service is provided by Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust. At the time of the inspection each bungalow had three people with learning disabilities. People who used the service had access to local community facilities such as shops, pubs and churches.

The service has a 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe while staying at the home. One person said, “I feel very safe here, staff have helped me a lot I am a lot more confident now.” Staff had a clear understanding of potential abuse which helped them recognise abuse and how they would deal with situations if they arose.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to

recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed in the service.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were policies and procedures in place and key staff had been trained. This helped to make sure people were safeguarded from excessive or unnecessary restrictions being place on them.

The arrangements for handling medicines were safe and people received their medicines as prescribed.

We saw that the control and prevention of infection was managed well and that staff had been trained in infection control.

People were encouraged to make decisions about meals, and were supported to go shopping and be involved in menu planning. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of their care and support, where they were able, including suggestions for activities and holidays.

People had access to a wide range of activities that were provided both in-house and in the community. One person told us they had been to the Yorkshire Wildlife park. Another person had recently enjoyed a coach trip to celebrate their birthday.

We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People were happy to discuss the day’s events and two people told us about their likes and interests. One person had a keen interest in the Royal family.

People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it.

The NHS Trust management team had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and to continually review safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents. Where action plans were in place to make improvements, these were monitored to make sure they were delivered. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.

10a and 10b Station Road is a care home for people with learning disabilities. It is comprised of two bungalows, each with three bedrooms and is registered to care for six people. The service is run by Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust and is in Hatfield, Doncaster. At the time of this inspection the home was providing residential care for five people.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. It was also part of the first testing phase of the new inspection process CQC is introducing for adult social care services.

We were supported on this inspection by An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We visited the service on 10 April 2014. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. These including talking with people and observing the care and support being delivered.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

The people we spoke with told us they felt happy and safe living at 10a and 10b Station Road. There were policies and procedures in place to make sure staff understood how to respect people’s privacy, dignity and human rights. This was part of staff’s induction and on-going training. We saw that staff treated people with respect and were mindful of their rights and dignity.

People were involved in making decisions about taking risks in their lives. People’s plans included risk assessments. These told the staff about the risks for each person and how to manage and minimise these risks. People’s needs had been assessed and their care given in a way that suited their needs, without placing unnecessary restrictions on them.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). There were policies and procedures in place and key staff had been trained. This helped to make sure people were safeguarded from excessive or unnecessary restrictions being place on them.

The arrangements for handling medicines were safe and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People who used the service and people who mattered to them, such as a close family member, had been encouraged to make their views known about their care. An independent advocate from Doncaster Advocacy sometimes visited people to help with this. An advocate is someone who speaks up on people’s behalf. People and those who mattered to them had contributed to their assessments and care plans, about how they should be given care and support. People’s care plans had a good level of information about how each person should be supported, to make sure their needs were met. This included their needs around their diet and their health.

The staff were well trained, skilled and experienced. They had caring attitudes and we saw they encouraged people to be as independent as they could be. People told us about how they helped with keeping their house clean and doing their laundry. One person said they liked to help with keeping the kitchen clean.

People told us the staff were kind. We saw people had the privacy they needed. People did the activities they were interested in and we saw that staff supported them to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

People were encouraged to share any concerns and complaints they had. They said they told the staff if they had any worries. People didn’t have any complaints to tell us about and were very happy living at 10a and 10b Station Road.

People had a chance to say what they thought about the service and the service learned from its mistakes, using complaint and incidents as an opportunity for learning or improvement.

During our visit there were two people who used the service present at the home. As they were unable to speak with us because of their learning disability we spoke with a relative of one of them. The relative told us they were involved in discussions where this person’s care was agreed. We found that discussions with people who used the service, advocates and family members took place to ensure people consented to their care. Where people did not have capacity appropriate procedures were in place and were used.

The relative of a person who used the service told us they felt their relative was happy with the food and refreshments they received. We saw evidence of people being given choices as to what they wished to eat. A nutritious and balanced diet was made available.

The relative of a person who used the service told us they were happy with the standard of cleanliness of the home. We found there were systems in place to manage the prevention and control of infection.

We found that appropriate pre-employment checks were done and that effective recruitment processes were in place.

The relative of a person who used the service told us they had no concerns about the service offered. We found there was a complaints procedure in place and staff were aware of their responsibilities to report verbal complaints so they could be formally investigated.

We did not speak with people who used the service as none were present during our visit. However, we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service.

We spoke to two people who used the service.

They told us their independence was respected, they felt safe and were happy with the care they received.

They also told us that staff seemed well trained and that they were asked for their opinions on the care they received.