120 Furber Road is a residential care home for up to five people with learning difficulties.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring in their approach and who understood the needs of people well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and encouraged their independence as far as they were able.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff understood the principles of Mental Capacity Act and put this in to practice in their work.

People were supported by staff who received good training and development in order to carry out their roles.

Staff understood people as individuals with their individual needs and preferences. We saw that people were able to follow their own routines. People ate their meals at a time that suited them rather than at prescribed times. People were supported to make complaints if they needed to; there was a ‘complaints profile’ in place for people who were not able to express their concerns verbally.

The service was well led. There was a registered manager in place, supported by an assistant team leader. Staff were positive about the management team and told us they felt able to raise any concerns they had.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

The inspection took place on 30 November 2015 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected in September 2014 and met with legal requirements.

120 Furber Road is registered to provide personal care and accommodation to up to five people with complex learning disabilities. There were five people at the home on the day of our visit.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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 safe care from the staff who supported them at the home. When risks to people were identified suitable actions were put in place to reduce the likelihood of them reoccurring.

There were systems in place to minimise the risks to people from abuse. The staff were trained to help them to understand what abuse was and how to keep people safe.

There were enough staff employed to support people to provide them with safe care. Staffing numbers were increased when needed. For example, when people required more support with their care due to changes in their physical health.

Staff were caring in their approach to people when they assisted them with their needs. Due to their needs people were not able to tell us verbally how they felt about the staff. However we saw that people looked relaxed, happy and engaged with the staff.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to be healthy and menus were planned based on people’s likes and dislikes.

People’s legal rights were protected because the provider had a system in place to ensure the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were implemented. This legislation protects the rights of people who lack capacity to make informed decisions.

People were well supported so that they were able to take part in individual activities as well as group ones. People went out for trips into the local area and to a number of community based groups. These included an arts and crafts group and a cycling club.

People’s care plans clearly explained how to meet their care and support needs. The staff team had got to know the people they supported very well. The care and support people received was based on the staff teams knowledge of their needs and preferences.

People were well supported with their physical healthcare needs and external healthcare professionals gave specialist advice and guidance when needed.

Staff felt they were properly supported in their work and they said the registered manager was supportive.

The quality of care and service received was checked and monitored to make sure it was safe and suitable.

The visions and values  of the organisation were understood by the team. The staff showed that they followed these visions and values in their work. The key values included the providing personalised care and treating people as unique individuals.

There were suitable checking systems in place to ensure that the service people received was suitable, and to improve the overall quality.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. Please note that the summary section will be used to populate the CQC website. Providers will be asked to share this section with the people who use their service and the staff that work at there.

During our visit we interacted with three people living at the home. Due to the complex needs of people living at the home communication was difficult to evaluate. We spoke with the registered manager and two members of staff.

We used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what the registered manager and members of the staff team told us.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by staff. Consent to care and treatment had been sought and signed for by appropriate persons. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

We saw systems were in place to help ensure the registered manager and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded as required.

The registered manager was responsible for arranging staff rotas and took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were met.

Policies and procedures were in place to help make sure unsafe practice could be identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it. This meant people could access additional support when they required it.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved as much as possible in the development of their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. We saw care plans reflected the current needs and wishes of people.

People's needs were taken into account with appropriate signage. The layout of the service enabled people to move freely and safely around the home. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people who lived at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw staff were patient and gave encouragement when they supported people. Staff engaged and involved people in decision making processes and went about their duties in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had access to a range of daily activities both inside and outside of the home.

Details of the complaints procedure was easily accessible and clearly displayed on the notice board in the hallway. The procedure was presented in written and pictorial representation so that everyone could understand it. We saw there was a complaints log and entries made had been recorded in detail and dealt with appropriately. We saw there was a comments log for people to use. We saw positive comments about the service had been made. This showed us people were happy with the service they received.

Is the service well led?

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and others involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Comments and ideas were listened to and acted upon in a timely manner.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to help make sure people received their care in a cohesive manner.

The service had a quality assurance system and records showed notes for action were addressed promptly. As a result, the quality of the service continued to improve.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes which were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

We met the four people who lived at the home to find out what life was like for them there. We found that people were effectively assisted with their needs and were properly supported at the home.

People’s care plans and their risk assessment records showed how to meet their range of care needs and how to support them safely.

People who lived at 120 Furber Road were effectively supported to live a varied and fulfilling life in the home and the community.

People were provided with a varied and nutritious diet that was based on what they liked to eat. Where people required special diets for their needs these were well catered for.

People were protected from the risks of and unsuitable staff because there were effective staff recruitment procedures in place.

The quality of care and overall service people received was checked and monitored to make sure it was suitable for them. Where improvements were needed, action was taken to address these.

People living at Furber road were not able to tell us directly about their experiences of living at the home, due to their communication needs. However, we made observations about the care that they received. On the day of our visit, we saw that people appeared settled and calm and were cared for by staff who were knowledgeable about their needs. We saw that people were supported to access the community, however staffing arrangements meant that it wasn't always possible for people to go out when they wanted to.

We saw that people's support needs were identified and outlined in clear support plans. Risk assessments were in place to help ensure that people could be supported safely and with minimal risk.

We also saw that people were supported in a clean and hygienic environment and that there were policies and procedures in place to minimise the risks of cross infection.

We found that there was awareness amongst staff of how to support people in making decisions about their own care and treatment. However, we could not be sure that the correct procedures were followed to ensure that significant decisions about a person's care were made in their best interests. This is a requirement of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We met 4 of the 5 people who lived at 120 Furber Road care home when we carried out our inspection of the service. Due to their complex needs people who used the service were not able to directly make their views known to us. We relied on our observations of people who used the service being supported by the staff. We also spoke at length to the staff on duty about how they met each person's needs.

We saw that people were encouraged and supported to live a meaningful and fulfilling life in the home and in the community. People were actively encouraged and supported to develop independence in their lives. People went out on regular trips into the community with the support of the staff. During our inspection people were getting ready to go out to the local supermarket for the morning.

We saw people were treated with respect and kindness by the staff. People were effectively supported with their range of complex needs. People were being supported to maintain their health, safety and wellbeing.

We saw care plans and risk assessments records about peoples who used the service. The care plans and risk assessment records were informative and they showed how to meet peoples needs as well as how to protect their safety and wellbeing in 120 Furber Road as well as in the community. We saw that care plans and risk assessments were reviewed often. They were updated when required to reflect any changes in people’s needs.

People were helped to stay safe at 120 Furber Road and were protected from abuse. The staff who looked after people at the home had attended regular training courses to help them to understand how to safeguard them from abuse. Staff were clear about who to report an allegation of abuse to. They also understood the role of the local authority in the safeguarding processes that would be followed in the event of an allegation of abuse.

The staff showed an understanding and awareness of the complex needs of the people who lived at 120 Furber Road. People were supported by staff who were being effectively supervised and monitored in their work at 120 Furber Road.

We saw effective methods were in use to check monitor and improve even further the quality of the service people received. We saw there were systems to review and learn from all critical incidents and occurrences that may have impacted on people's health and wellbeing.