We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 5 October 2016.

2-8 Orchard Street provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people living with mental health needs. People lived in three bungalows and shared a communal bungalow within the same grounds. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people living at the service.

2-8 Orchard Street is required to have 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 time of the inspection a registered manager was in post.

People received a safe service. Staff were aware of the safeguarding adult procedures to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm and had received appropriate training. Risks were known by staff and managed appropriately. Accidents and incidents were recorded and appropriate action had been taken to reduce further risks. People received their medicines as prescribed and these were managed correctly.

Staff received an induction, training and appropriate support. There were sufficient experienced, skilled and trained staff available to meet people’s needs. People’s dependency needs had been reviewed and were monitored for any changes. Staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices.

People were involved in the menu planning and their nutritional needs had been assessed and planned for. People’s healthcare needs had been assessed and were regularly monitored. The service worked well with visiting healthcare professionals to ensure they provided effective care and support.

The manager applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), so that people’s rights were protected. People were asked for their consent before care and support was provided and this was respected.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported. They had a clear understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences and routines. Information about people’s social history was very limited. The provider asked people, relatives and representatives for their experience about the service provided.

People were involved in their care and support. There was a complaint policy and procedure available and confidentiality was maintained. People did not have access to independent advocacy services, however this was made available after our inspection. There were no restrictions on people visiting the service.

People were supported to participate in activities, interests and hobbies of their choice, independence was promoted and there were no restrictions placed upon them. People accessed the community independently as they wished.

The provider had systems in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service. There was a registered manager in place.