38 Torrin Drive is a residential care home for five people with a learning disability, associated physical disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder.

38 Torrin Drive is a large detached property with local amenities and transport links close by and the home is staffed 24 hours a day.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

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.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse as staff were confident to recognise and report any signs of abuse.

There were sufficient numbers staff to meet people's needs in a safe way. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure that appropriate staff were employed.

Risks to people were assessed and safely managed and people's medicines were safely managed and administered.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

The provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported to eat well in line with their needs and preferences. People's health and well-being was monitored and supported. People were cared for by staff who were supported and had the skills and training to meet their needs.

Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful manner and they knew people well. People's privacy was respected and staff supported people to maintain their dignity. People were offered choice and had strong family links to ensure support with decision making if required.

People saw healthcare professionals when they needed. People received a service which met their needs and preferences.

People were provided with opportunities for social activities and they were supported to maintain contact with their family and friends. Communication was a strength of the service and as a result people lived fulfilled lives.

There were effective procedures in place to respond to any concerns or complaints. People's end of life wishes were documented and reflected their cultural diversity.

There were effective management systems in place and there were systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

People were supported by a team of staff who felt supported and valued.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

The inspection was carried out on 15 February 2016 and was unannounced.

38 Torrin Drive is registered to provide accommodation with personal care needs to five people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. There were five people living at the home on the day of the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post who was present during the inspection. 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 and their relatives told us people received support to keep safe. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to protect people from harm. Staff were aware of who to report concerns to if they witnessed or became aware of abuse taking place.

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and guidelines put in place to minimise the risks without restricting people’s independence. Staff knew how to deal with accidents and incidents and these were overseen by the registered manager who took action to prevent them happening again.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Checks had been undertaken to make sure new staff were suitable to work with people before they started working at the home. New staff received a structured induction to ensure they were competent and confident to support people safely.

People received their medicine when they needed it and medicine was stored securely. Staff were aware of the support people required to manage their medicines safely. Only staff who received medicine training administered them. Staff monitored people’s health needs and supported them to see health care professionals as required.

People were supported by staff who were well trained and knowledgeable about their needs. Staff felt well supported and had access to a wide range of training that was relevant to their role and the people they supported.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act and used people’s preferred method of communication to enable them to make decisions for themselves. Where people were unable to make certain decisions for themselves we saw these were made in their best interest by people who knew them well.

People had their nutritional needs assessed and monitored. People were encouraged to follow a balanced nutritious diet and were given support to choose and prepare meals. Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs and ensured that they were provided with equipment to enable them to eat their food independently.

Staff were kind and considerate and spoke with and about people in a respectful way. People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted.

People were supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them. Relatives thought communication with staff and management was good. People were involved in decisions about their care and relatives were kept fully informed about any changes or concerns.

People and their relatives felt that staff and the registered manager were approachable. They were confident that if they had any concerns or complaints these would be listened to and acted upon.

There was a positive working culture at the home. Staff and management worked together to ensure people’s needs and wishes were met.

The provider had checks in place to monitor the quality of the service and sought feedback from people, relatives and staff to drive improvements in the service.

On the day of our inspection five people were living at the home. We spoke with people who used the service and a relative. People we spoke with were unable to tell us their views about their experience in any detail. When asked if they were happy at the home they said, “Yes”. A relative we spoke with said, “X loves it there”. During the inspection we sampled people’s care records and spoke with staff. They helped us to answer the five questions we always ask which are:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Care plans identified people’s needs and were reviewed regularly. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs. People were given choices and supported to make decisions themselves. Risk assessments were in place and control measures identified. This meant that people’s needs were met and people were kept safe.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff received ongoing training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. This meant that systems were in place to safeguard people as required.

People were protected against the risks associated with medication because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Only staff that had been trained administered medication.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place. New staff underwent an induction and shadowed other staff. We saw that legal checks and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were made. This meant that people received care and support from staff who were competent and of good integrity.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People experienced care, and support that met their needs. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and to participate in a range of activities and outings Records showed people, their relatives and professionals were involved in care reviews. This meant that people’s needs were met.

People were able to move around the home freely and safely. Communication aids such symbols and pictures were available throughout the home. This enabled people to communicate their needs and staff to offer choices. Regular audits and checks took place. Issues identified were acted on. This meant the service had effective systems in place to identify improvements and continually meet people’s needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We saw people responded positively to staff. A relative we spoke with confirmed they felt the service was safe and caring.

People’s preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People were involved in their day to day care and were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. We saw that people were supported to fulfil their dreams and their diversity and individuality were promoted and respected.

Is the service responsive?

We saw staff that responded quickly to meet people’s needs and ensured people’s safety was maintained. For example, we saw staff understand a person communicating their needs through their behaviour. The person was supported to have a drink. We saw that people were supported to express their views and these were acted on. People had the opportunity to engage in activities both in the home and within the community.

People were reminded about the complaints process but no complaints had recently been received. A relative we spoke with told us how the service had responded to a concern they had identified. The relative told us, “I am so happy, I can relax knowing X is well-cared for”.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Staff felt supported in their roles and felt their views were listened too. A relative we spoke with confirmed they felt the service was well led.

The service had a quality assurance system. A new quality audit had been developed and was in the process of being used. This meant the quality of the service was continually improving.

Not everyone we met were able to verbally share their views and experiences about the service that they received. We therefore spent time observing routines and interactions. We saw people were provided with choices in their daily living. We saw people were supported to develop and maintain their independence.

People were supported to live full and active lives and took part in a range of leisure and social activities. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs. They knew people's preferences, communication methods, likes and dislikes well. Staff engaged with people positively and respectfully and had a good rapport with the people they supported.

Support plans were comprehensive and provided staff with all the information they needed to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s healthcare needs were closely monitored. People received relevant input from professionals where this was required, for example speech and language to aid with communication.

Staff were well trained and supported in their work. Staff had supervision, appraisal and had attended training courses appropriate to their role and to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Staff ensured that people's views were considered and listened to. Staff responded to verbal and non verbal communication methods to identify and respond to people's requests. The service had quality monitoring tools to ensure that they maintained good quality and safe care.