35 Cranbrook Road is a residential care home for 5 people with mental health needs. At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. There was a registered manager in place, however at the time of our inspection they were no longer directly managing the service, having taken up another post within the organisation. There was another manager in day to day charge of the home and the plan was for them to become registered. 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 were safe whilst living at Cranbrook Road. There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that people’s needs were met. Staffing was flexible in order to meet people’s needs. Some people were independent in taking their medicines and staff supported them in this. Other people required staff to administer medicines for them. This was managed safely. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that staff had guidance in the safest ways to support people.

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 support this practice. There was information in people’s care plans about their capacity to make decisions. Nobody in the home required a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation and so people were free to leave the home as they wished. Staff received good training and support to help them carry out their roles. People had plans in place to support them manage their mental health needs.

Staff were caring and supported people to be independent. Issues relating to equality and diversity were considered in people’s care planning. People were able to maintain relationships with their families.

The service was responsive. People’s individual needs were met and well described in their care plans. People were able to make complaints and were encouraged to do so. People were independent in following their own interests and activities; however there were opportunities to take part in organised events if people wished to.

The home was well led. Staff were positive about working in the home and felt well supported in their work. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the home. This included gathering feedback from people in the home.

This inspection took place on 18 August 2015 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected in April 2014. There were no breaches of the legal requirements at that time.

35 Cranbrook Road is a Milestones Trust care home that is registered to provide personal care to up to five people. People who live at the home have long term mental health needs.

Actions to ensure the home environment was safe had not been kept up to date. For example, some old items of furniture were stored on the stairs next to the office. This was a fire exit route.

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 told us they felt supported by staff who were an established and well trained team. The registered manager provided effective leadership to the staff team. Regular house meetings were held so people were able to be involved in the running of the home.

People were supported to stay safe in the community and risks that they may experience were managed safely. This was done in a way that did not restrict people’s freedom or independence.

People told us they were well cared for and we saw they were relaxed and comfortable in the home. People spoke positively about the staff who supported them. Comments included, “The staff are very very good here, they know what I need”.

People’s care records were personalised and they clearly set out what their care and support needs were. Care plans contained information about people’s likes, interests and life before they came to the home.

People were supported to do things that mattered to them in the local community. Staff supported people with a wide variety of activities in the home and the community.

Staff and people who lived at the home felt supported by the registered manager. Quality checking systems were in place to monitor the care and service people received. The registered manager’s own health and safety checks had identified the need for actions to be taken to keep the environment free from hazards.

Our inspection helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were effectively supported by staff with their mental health needs at 35 Cranbrook Road. Care plans and risk assessments set out how to promote people’s independence and how to support them to stay safe in the home and the community.

People told us they felt well treated by the staff who supported them. One person told us that the support worker on duty was, “a calm oasis who has centred me to a better place”. Another person told us “they are all kind”.

The provider had put in place safeguarding procedures that helped to keep people safe from potential abuse, and staff we spoke with understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Is the service effective?

People’s care and support needs were planned and assessed with their involvement. People’s plans of care clearly set out the type of support that people needed to effectively meet their range of needs. Mental health needs, spiritual needs, communication needs and dietary needs had been identified in care plans where relevant.

People were supported to be able to enjoy a varied and nutritious diet. People were also encouraged by the staff to help to prepare and cook meals. This helped people to be actively involved in the day today running of the home.

Where people had specific dietary needs their care plans accurately reflected how to meet them.

People told us that they lived a varied and fulfilling life in the home and the community and were able to take part in activities of their choosing. One person told us about the art class that they attended on a regular basis. Another person told us they regularly went out shopping and for lunch with their keyworker from the staff team.

Staff were provided with a variety of regular training opportunities to ensure that they were competent to the needs of people who used the service. There was a system of staff supervision in place that ensured staff were supported and developed. This helped ensure that the staff performance continually improved.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that the two support workers we met were patient and attentive in manner with people. Two people helped a support worker to cook lunch. The support worker was encouraging and supportive in manner. One person commented, “they are all wonderful”. Another person said, “it’s not too bad here”.

We saw confirmation that people’s preferences, interests and diverse needs had been clearly recorded in their care plans. Care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. For example, people were offered additional one to one staff time and support at times of the day that they preferred.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals completed a regular satisfaction survey about the care and support that was provided. When shortfalls were identified we saw evidence that action was taken to ensure that these were promptly addressed.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The three people that we spoke with said that they felt able to speak to the registered manager at any time if they did have a concern.

There were systems to ensure that people were able to make their views known about the service. Regular in house meeting were held and people were encouraged to talk about things that mattered to them about the way the home was run.

The provider had introduced a service user committee made up of people who used their services. One person told us that the manager had discussed this with them. They said it was a way for people to make their views known to the person in charge. The people we spoke with told us they had not yet decided whether they wanted to join the committee.

There was evidence that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, and concerns about the service. This helped to minimise risks to people and also ensured that standards were continually improved.

Is the service well-led?

The views of people who used the service were actively sought by the provider. Two people told us they had met the chief executive who had come to the home to meet people on at least three occasions. One of the people told us that they were a, “very nice fellow”.

The staff and people who used the service spoke highly about the registered manager. One person told us that they were “wonderful in every sense and very very kind”. A member of staff told us they had seen people grow in confidence and independence since the current registered manager had taken over the running of the home.

There were systems in place to ensure that the service people received was checked and monitored so that it was safe and suitable for them.

We spoke with four people who used the service to find out what life was like for them at 35 Cranbrook Road. We also asked them their views of the staff who assisted them with needs.

Everyone who we spoke with had positive views to share with us about the care and support they received at the home. One person told us, “I do like it here I’m very happy here”. Another person told us, “the staff are very good they are all very nice”, another person said "It’s a good house a cosy house and I feel wanted here" ,

People who used the service were effectively supported to live a varied and fulfilling life within the community.

People’s care plans and their risk assessment records were detailed and informative. They set out how to support people effectively with their mental health needs and how to promote their independence. This meant staff had guidance so that they knew how to give people suitable care and assistance.

People who used the service liked and appreciated their home environment. The environment was safe and suitable for people’s needs.

People were supported by staff who were properly supervised to ensure they were providing suitable care.

There was a suitable system in place to quality check the service people were receiving. People who used the service were actively involved in this process.

During our inspection on 9 May 2012 we identified that the home was not compliant with the regulations in the outcome areas of both medication and record keeping. The provider wrote to us and told us what they were going to do to make sure that they were compliant with the regulations in these areas. We visited the home to check that the provider had made the improvements which they told us they would.

We were told that the registered manager had left the home in June 2012 and that the home was being managed by the registered manager of one of the provider’s other homes. This person was in the process of applying to become the registered manager of both Cranbrook road and the other home which was situated nearby.

We did not speak to people in detail during this inspection, but two people we spoke with told us that they liked living at the home and they liked the new manager.

We carried out this review of the home on 9 May 2012.

People told us they liked living at the home and that they liked the staff.

One person said “I like the house, the staff are not so bad, so far so good”,

People were supported in promoting their independence.

Staff told us that one person living at the home self catered 6 days a week

One staff member told us “I try to involve everyone who lives at the home in what is going on to ensure that they are as independent as possible.”

We found that care records sometimes did not reflect the support given to people living at the home.

We found that the home was not keeping adequate records when supporting people who were in control of their own medication.