Ability Associates Limited – 77 The Street is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to two people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection one person was living at the home.

This inspection took place on 28 July 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider short notice of our inspection the day before the visit. This was to ensure we visited the service at a time when people were at home.

There was a registered manager in post at 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager had not reported notifiable incidents to the Care Quality Commission. This meant information about risks in the service and the action that was taken to keep people safe had not been shared with the regulator.

The registered manager had taken action to make an application for an authorisation under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). However, details of mental capacity assessments and restrictions on the person were not included in their support plans.

The person using the service was positive about the support they received, commenting “ I feel safe here. There is a staff member on duty at all times and someone sleeping in overnight. I get on well with the staff”.

Medicines were safely managed. There were systems in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. Staff understood the needs of the person they were supporting.

Staff received training suitable to their role and an induction when they started working for the service. They demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities, as well as the values and philosophy of the service.

The provider assessed and monitored the quality of care and took action to address shortfalls that were identified.

We found a breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We looked at the care record of one person which included a signed consent for information about their health to be shared with third parties, for example, their GP or other healthcare professionals in an emergency situation.

We saw the staff kept daily records which showed the person’s wellbeing was monitored, and gave evidence their personal care was supported. Information was handed over in writing between staff as they replaced each other on shifts. Handover records showed evidence that identified concerns were recognised and acted on, by staff or by external referrals, in a timely way.

The home is owned by the National Trust and leased by the provider. It provides a homely environment in a rural location. During our visit we looked around the home and found it clean and tidy. The kitchen and lounges had furniture and equipment in good condition and provided a pleasant environment for people to use.

Staff we spoke with confirmed they received regular supervision. One care worker told us “I can get supervision whenever I need it rather than have to wait”.

Systems were in place for checking the quality of the service. We saw a spread sheet which was used by the deputy manager on a monthly basis to record checks made regarding health and safety and welfare issues: such as cleaning, vehicle safety, petty cash, laundry and safe temperatures of water and fridges.

We met and talked with the person who was living at the home. We talked with a member of staff and the registered manager.

We saw and heard the person who used the service being supported with kindness and patience. They had one to one staffing at all times. They took part in activities of their choice, in the home and out in the community. The home provided a car so people could be taken where they wanted to go. The person we met also used a bus pass. They enjoyed trips to local towns and the countryside and were supported to keep up a special interest in museums.

The home had a close working relationship with a GP and other health professionals. People had the support they needed with long term health conditions and when they were unwell.

The home was like a family home. It provided a range of rooms where people could go to be alone or to enjoy company, as they chose.

The person who was living in the home told us the staff knew them well. They felt very much at home. The registered manager was well known to the person living in the home and to the staff.

We met with both of the people who live at the home. One person spent time describing what it was like to live at 77 The Street. We observed staff interactions with people and noted that those, who were less able to share their views, looked relaxed and comfortable in the company of the staff.

People told us they could make choices and were involved in the running of the home. They said they liked the staff team and that they were treated well. One person commented that they preferred the male carers as ‘the ladies don’t like doing the same things as the blokes”.

People told us they were supported by staff to carry out certain daily routines and access the community. People’s independence was promoted and staff respected their privacy.

We met with both of the people who live at the home. One person spent time describing what it was like to live at 77 The Street. We observed staff interactions with people and noted that those, who were less able to share their views, looked relaxed and comfortable in the company of the staff.

People told us they could make choices and were involved in the running of the home. They said they liked the staff team and that they were treated well. One person commented that they preferred the male carers as ‘the ladies don’t like doing the same things as the blokes”.

People told us they were supported by staff to carry out certain daily routines and access the community. People’s independence was promoted and staff respected their privacy.