Aaron House is a care home registered to accommodate up to six younger adults with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection six people were using the service.

At our last inspection on1 and 2 October 2015 we rated the service as overall ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’. 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.

People were kept safe. Risks were identified, managed and reduced. Staff were recruited safely and they were trained and supported to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s medicines were managed safely and they received these as prescribed. The environment was kept clean and well maintained.

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 home supported this practice. People’s nutritional wellbeing had been maintained and they continued to have access to health care professionals when needed.

People’s needs were assessed, care plans were developed and care was delivered in a way which met their needs and preferences. People were treated equally and their individual preferences and wishes were respected. Relatives were provided with opportunities to speak on behalf of their relative and to visit when they chose to.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. There were arrangements in place to help people feel included and to take part in social activities. Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people’s end of life needs. No-one at the home was receiving end of life care. However the registered manager explained that they had plans to slowly and informatively speak to people individually about their end of life care and wishes and document their views

The home was well managed and the registered manager ensured people’s needs and wishes were the primary focus. Effective and appropriate systems, processes and practices ensured the home ran smoothly and that necessary regulations were met. Complaints could be raised and these were investigated and addressed. All feedback was welcomed and used to improve the service further.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

One of the named registered managers on this report was not in post at the time of our inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register. We have advised the provider of what they need to do to remove the individual’s name from our register.

Aaron house provides residential accommodation to a maximum of six people with learning disabilities. An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report. This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and the manager was always available in emergencies. Staff had been trained to administer medicines. This included the administration of a specialist medicine which required additional training. Staff had been trained in caring for people with epilepsy.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people’s care and support needs. They knew each person who used the service very well. One person told us “the staff are always there to help me when I need it”. One relative told us “I can’t fault it, my daughter gets very good care here”.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and encouraged the people who used the service. The people who used the service told us that there were not rushed by the staff. Our observations confirmed this.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed . Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been considered and acted on. Care had been provided to meet their needs. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their family.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the home and the people who used the service. The people who used the service told us that they felt comfortable approaching any member of staff if there was any problems. Staff and people who used the service were involved in day to day decisions affecting the home.

During our visit we were made to feel welcomed by staff and the people who lived in the home. We spoke with the manager, four care workers and two people who lived in the home. One person happily showed us around their home.

We found that people looked well cared for and that staff were very supportive and attentive to people's needs. Staff said they were fully supported by the home to develop and retain the required skills and knowledge to support people appropriately and safely.

Although people took part in different activities, we did find that people did not have enough opportunities to take part in a one to one activity of their choice and interest.

We found that care records were person centred and detailed which gave guidance to staff on people's care needs. People told us that they knew how to make a complaint and we saw that the format of the complaints procedure was in an appropriate format and that the home followed its policy and procedures when investigating and resolving complaints.

We found that the home was spacious and airy with appropriate furnishings and decor. One person told us they "Loved their bedroom and everyone was friends".

People said that staff listened to them and provided a service that met their needs. One person said, "They support me and we go out." Staff were described as "wonderful helpful and lovely".

People led active lifestyles with the appropriate support of staff as required. On the day of our visit three people were out for the morning attending college another person had gone out shopping in preparation for short break to Weymouth. One person told us “I really enjoy college, I meet my friends, and drama group is my favourite”.

People were aware that if they were unhappy about the service they received they could make a compliant to the manger. One person told us "if I had to make a complaint I am sure they would listen to me and do something about it", another person told us “I have been to the office and a problem that I had was dealt with immediately”.

We spoke with two support workers during our visit. Staff were very motivated, caring and positive about working in the home and praised the teamwork and supportive atmosphere.

Appropriate recruitment checks had been undertaken before staff began working at Aaron House. Staff had received training in order to support people that lived at the home.

A person told us that it was good fun living there and that the staff are nice. They told us they are always learning new things at Cirencester College and they can do what they like. The person said there were loads of things they could do at the home and that they liked using the Wii (a home video game console).The person showed us how they used the shared computer in the home and that they can see their family using the Skype (an application to make a voice and video call over the Internet).

Swimming was a regular activity enjoyed by one person.

We spoke to a relative who told us their daughter was really happy at the home and that they always do activities at the weekends and go out some evenings during the week as well. The relative told us they and their friends always receive a friendly welcome from the staff.

People told us they liked the staff and would share their concerns with them. A person told us the staff always made them feel safe.

A person told us that they can do what they like and the staff always help them. A relative told us that the manager keeps them informed by email and also sends photographs of what they have been doing. An email from one relative said 'best care plan ever'.

Aaron House is a care home registered to accommodate up to six younger adults with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection four people were using the service.

This inspection was unannounced, which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. We visited the service on 1 and 2 October 2015.

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.

People were safe because the registered manager and staff team understood their roles and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Staff knew how to raise any concerns regarding people’s safety. People were supported to take appropriate risks and promote their independence. Risks were assessed and individual plans put in plans to protect people from harm. People were protected from the risks associated with medicines because the provider had clear systems in place and staff had received the appropriate training. There was sufficient staff to provide care and support to people. Pre-employment checks were carried out on staff before they started work to assess their suitability.

People were provided with effective care and support. Staff had received the appropriate training to meet people’s needs. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were fully involved in planning what they had to eat. People’s healthcare needs were met and staff worked with health and social care professionals to access relevant services. Some concerns were expressed with us regarding the heating system. We also noticed the outside of the house was in need of attention. The registered manager and provider had plans to address these issues.

People received a service that was caring. People were involved in making decisions about how they wanted to be looked after and how they spent their time. People had positive relationships with staff. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with family and friends. People’s independence was promoted.

People received person centred care and support. They were offered a range of activities both at the service and in the local community. The registered manager and staff were working with people to increase the activities outside of the service. The service was responsive to people’s changing needs. People using the service, families and professionals were encouraged to make their views known and the service made changes as a result.

The service was well led. The registered manager provided good leadership and management. The vision and culture of the service was clearly communicated. The quality of service people received was monitored on a regular basis and where shortfalls were identified they were acted upon. The registered manager had identified key priorities to improve the service.