The inspection took place on 12 September 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in July 2015 the service was rated Good with no breaches of regulation found. The service provides care and accommodation for up to six people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service. One person was in hospital and so unable to speak with us.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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 safe and got on well with staff. We observed positive relationships between people in the home and staff. Staff spoke positively about people and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff understood the principles of safeguarding adults and this protected people from the risk of abuse.

We noted one area in the home that was damaged by a significant damp issue. This had been noted and reported by the registered manager and action had been taken to address it.

The service was effective. People in the home had capacity to make decisions for themselves, however staff understood the principles of the MCA and how they applied to their work. Nobody in the home was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation.

Staff were well trained and supported in their roles. New staff to the organisation undertook the Care Certificate. This is a nationally recognised qualification that provides staff with the necessary skills to undertake a role in the care sector. Staff were supervised regularly to monitor their performance and development needs.

People’s independence was encouraged and promoted. The registered manager had completed a project looking at how people’s independence could be supported with the use of assistive technology. This included for example looking at ways in which technology could be employed to assist a person to be independent with their medicines.

The home was responsive to people’s needs. People had clear and person centred support plans in place. These were reviewed and updated regularly with the input of the person concerned. If a person’s needs changed this was identified and plans put in place to address the issue. People felt able to raise concerns and issues if they needed to. It was clear the registered manager took note of the concern and whether any improvements could be made for people in the home. House meetings took place on a three monthly basis to encourage people to give their views and opinions about the running of the home.

The home was well led. Staff were all positive about working for the organisation and told us communication was good within the team. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

The inspection took place on 17 July 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in November 2013, we asked the provider to take action to improve the service. This was because the system used to assess and monitor the quality of the service was not kept up to date. This meant the quality of the service had not been monitored effectively.

After the inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. At this inspection, we checked that they had followed their plan to confirm that they now met legal requirements. We found actions had been completed and the quality of the service was effectively checked and monitored.

63 Coronation Road is one of the services run by Milestones Trust. The home is registered to provide personal care for six people with mental health needs. At the time of our visit there were four people living there.

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 had positive views about the staff and the support they were given for their particular mental health needs. Staff were kind and caring in their approach and people and staff interacted in a positive way. People told us they found the staff to be approachable and relaxed in manner and they could speak to them at any time.

People were well supported to eat and drink enough to be healthy. To build independence, people were encouraged to buy and prepare their own meals.

Care and support was planned with people, and their mental health needs were clearly identified in their care records. Staff knew how to support people in the ways that were explained in their care records. People were encouraged to make choices about how they were supported in their daily lives.

Systems were in place so that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were implemented when required. This legislation protects people who lack capacity to make informed decisions in their lives. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS applications are authorised to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom

Staff were properly supervised and supported in their work by the registered manager. The staff also took part in a variety of regular training in matters that were relevant to the needs of people at the home.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were investigated and responded to properly. People knew how to make their views known and they had access to up to date information to help them to make a complaint.

People told us the registered manager was approachable and was always available if they needed to see them.

The provider had ensured that regular checks on the quality of care and service where undertaken. When needed, actions were carried out to improve the service. Checks had recently identified that certain policies needed to be reviewed with the staff. This action had been implemented by the registered manager.

During our inspection of 11 June 2013, we found that care plans and risk assessment records did not clearly show how to support people with their full range of needs. The risk assessment records had not contained enough information to show that risks were identified or how to keep people safe.

We had found at our last inspection that some environmental risks to people in the home were not effectively managed. For example an electric lawn mower had been stored next to a vacuum cleaner in the hallway.

We had found that the provider’s system to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received was not being kept up to date.

The provider wrote to us and told us the action they would take and that they would be compliant in each of the three areas we had identified by 1 November 2013.

At this inspection we met four of the five people who used the service. Each person told us how happy they were at the home. One person told us the staff were “wonderful”.

Care records and risk assessments contained information that showed risks were identified and how to keep people safe.

We found that environmental risks to people in the home were now effectively managed.

The provider’s system to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received was now up to date. This demonstrated that the quality of service people was being properly monitored.

We spoke with the five people who used the service to find out what it was like living at 63 Coronation Road. We also asked people what they thought of the staff who assisted them with their needs.

Every person spoken with had positive views of care and support at the home. One person told us, “it is a peaceful place and I'm happy enough”. Examples of other comments people made included, “it’s alright here, it’s pleasant and we are not forced to do anything”, and "the staff here are very pleasant and helpful ".

People’s care plans and their risk assessment records did not show how to assist people effectively and safely with their full range of mental health needs. This meant people were at risk of receiving unsafe care.

The environment of the home and its location near to shops and a supermarket were appreciated by people who used the service. However people who used the service, staff and visitors were not fully protected against risks on the premises.

People who used the service were protected from the risks of unsuitable staff being recruited. This was because the recruitment processes for employing new staff ensured only suitable people were employed.

The quality of care and service people received was not being consistently checked and monitored. This meant people may be receiving a service that was not safe or suitable for their needs.

Before our visit we were told by the provider that the registered manager of the home had left the organisation. The provider told us that the home would be overseen by the area manager and a senior member of staff who worked at the home. This was confirmed by viewing the staffing rota's and what people and staff told us.

We saw that people’s needs were assessed and that support plans were put in place which ensured that these needs were met. People told us that there were enough staff working at the home to support their needs. One person said “Staff can tell if I’m feeling anxious and help me to get through it”.

People told us that they felt safe at the home. We observed that people interacted well with staff and appeared comfortable and relaxed. Staff we spoke with told us that they had received training in safeguarding adults.

People told us that they knew how to make a complaint, although they all told us that they had never made any complaints. Staff we spoke with were aware of the procedure when they received a complaint. However, we were unable to establish if the home maintained a record of complaints made.

People we spoke with told us that they had weekly resident meetings. People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People told us that the home was going to advertise for a new manager and that they would be involved in the interview process.