This inspection was announced and took place on 9 and 11 October 2018. 37 Wilcot Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This was the service’s first inspection since registration.

37 Wilcot Road is a small residential home for one person with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection one person was living at the service. The home was a semi-detached property with a small garden located in Pewsey.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

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.

Medicines were not always managed safely. Temperatures had not been taken in rooms where medicines were stored. This did not ensure that medicines were being stored at the correct temperature. Hand-written entries on medicines administration records had not been signed by staff to confirm accuracy. Not all the medicines stored at the service had been signed in to check they were as prescribed.

Recruitment was not always safe. Whilst most pre-employment checks had been completed, a full employment history had not always been obtained. Where employment references might indicate negativity, the decision-making process about accepting them was not available.

Activities were provided but lacked variety. There was no formal activity plan in place to support staff to know what to do day to day.

Quality monitoring was not robust. Whilst there was a monthly managers audit tool which was being used, this had not produced any action plans to address identified shortfalls. Audits completed did not identify the issues which we have found. Feedback had not been sought to evaluate the service and make improvements.

People were protected from abuse as staff understood how to recognise the indicators of concern and how to report their concerns. Risks had been identified and there were safety measures in place. The service was very clean and there were systems in place to minimise the risk of infections and the spread of infection.

Needs had been assessed and the provider had worked in partnership with professionals to support the person to move to their new home. Staff had been visiting the person in their previous environment to get to know them. Health needs were supported by timely access to healthcare professionals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff had been trained and understood the general requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed. Staff were kind and caring and had developed good relationships with the person. Communication was supported by staff who adapted their approach where needed. Staff had been trained and had access to formal supervision.

We have made a recommendation about recording formal supervision for staff.

The person’s care plan was detailed and person-centred. It covered a range of needs with guidance for staff to be able to offer personalised support. There was sufficient food and drink available. Staff provided good support to the person at mealtimes.

There was a com