63 Collier Road is a care home providing social and residential care for up to three people with learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection there were three people living in the home. People had varied needs related to their learning disabilities. Some had more specialist needs associated with autism and other specialist conditions. People had different communication needs. Some people communicated verbally, and others used gestures, body language and Makaton (a form of sign language) to make their needs known. The provider runs four other care homes locally.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing 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.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 22 and 27 November 2018 and was announced. The service had a registered manager. 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 were treated with dignity and respect by kind and caring staff. Staff had a very good understanding of people’s complex care and support needs and they had developed positive relationships with people. People were supported to attend health appointments and, if necessary, professionals came to the home for visits. Professionals spoke positively about the service. One health care professional told us, “63 Collier Road has always been a competent, efficient and caring service that cooperate with our specialist services very well.”

People had enough to eat and drink and menus were varied and well balanced. They were supported to take part in a variety of activities to meet their individual needs and wishes. This included aromatherapy, swimming, music sessions, theatres, cafes and restaurants.

There were enough staff who had been appropriately recruited, to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had a very good understanding of the risks associated with supporting people. They knew what actions to take to mitigate these risks and provide a safe environment for people to live. Staff understood what they needed to do to protect people from the risk of abuse. Incidents and accidents were well managed and lessons were learned to pre-empt and avoid similar occurrences. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People’s needs were effectively met because staff attended regular training to update their specialist knowledge and skills around supporting people with autism and behaviours that challenged. Care staff attended regular supervision meetings and told us they were very well supported by the management of the home. People were encouraged to make decisions and choices. They 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 supported this practice.

The provider had effective good systems to monitor the management a

63 Collier 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 location is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of three people with learning disabilities. Three people lived at the service at the time of our inspection. People who lived at the service were adults below the age of sixty five years old. People had different communication needs. Some people were able to communicate verbally, and other people used gestures and body language. 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.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 12 February 2018 and was announced. There was a registered manager in place. '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.'

The service was last inspected in August 2015 when it was rated as 'Good’ overall. At this inspection we found the service had maintained their rating of 'Good' overall.

People were supported to maintain their independence and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to meet with family members and to attend activities within the local community.

Relatives told us that people were safe and well supported by enough staff, who knew people well. Staff were checked before they worked with people. People could be involved in cooking and staff undertook the cleaning. The premises suited people's needs. The home was clean and being maintained.

People had support to keep well and healthy and to take the medicines they needed. People were involved in making decisions about what happened at the service so that they all had a say. The registered manager had been managing the service for several years and was experienced and skilled at supporting people with learning disabilities. However, the registered manager did not have sufficient oversight, therefore risks to people were also not always being reported, monitored and assessed.

There was a clear complaints procedure available in an easy-read format.

This inspection took place on 12 August 2015. To ensure we met staff and the people that lived at the service, we gave short notice of our inspection.

This location is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of three people with learning disabilities. Two people lived at the service at the time of our inspection.

People who lived at the service were younger adults below the age of sixty five years old. People had different communication needs. Some people were able to communicate verbally, and other people used gestures and body language. We talked directly with people and used observations to better understand people's needs.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual. Each risk assessment included clear control measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow to make sure people were protected from harm. Risk assessments took account of people’s right to make their own decisions.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of reoccurrence could be reduced. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were adjusted according to people’s changing needs. There were safe recruitment procedures in place which included the checking of references.

Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.

Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their support needs. Each person’s needs and personal preferences had been assessed and were continually reviewed.

Staff were competent to meet people’s needs. Staff received on-going training and supervision to monitor their performance and professional development. Staff were supported to undertake a professional qualification in social care to develop their skills and competence.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Two people were subject to a DoLS, and the registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to assess whether a person needed a DoLS.

The service provided meals and supported people to make meals that met their needs and choices. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and needs.

Staff communicated effectively with people, responded to their needs promptly, and treated them with kindness and respect. People were satisfied about how their care and treatment was delivered. People’s privacy was respected and people were assisted in a way that respected their dignity.

People were involved in their day to day care and support. People’s care plans were reviewed with their participation and relatives were invited to attend the reviews and contribute.

People were promptly referred to health care professionals when needed. Personal records included people’s individual plans of care, life history, likes and dislikes and preferred activities. The staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves. People were involved in planning activities of their choice.

People received care that responded to their individual care and support needs. People were provided with accessible information about how to make a complaint and received staff support to make their views and wishes known.

There was an open culture that put people at the centre of their care and support. Staff held a clear set of values based on respect for people, ensuring people had freedom of choice and support to be as independent as possible.

People and staff were encouraged to comment on the service provided and their feedback was used to identify service improvements. There were audit processes in place to monitor the quality of the service.

When we visited we met one of the three people living in the house who had limited communication skills. Two other people who later returned from activities were able to engage in conversation. One person was able to comment about what it was like living at the house.

We spoke with five staff including the manager. Staff told us they felt training had provided them with the skills and knowledge required to support people appropriately and safely. They said they felt well supported by the provider and the manager and other staff, and were provided with opportunities to express their views through supervision and staff meetings.

We saw that the house was maintained to a good standard, and was clean and tidy. All regular servicing and checks had been carried out. We checked recruitment files and were satisfied that all appropriate checks were made on the fitness of staff and that they were provided with an appropriate level of induction and training.

We looked at a range of documentation detailing how care was delivered and monitored. This was well ordered and kept under review. There was evidence of the implementation of action plans where shortfalls in the service were identified, and examples of where actions had been completed.