This inspection took place on 1 November 2016 and was announced.

The service is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. It provides a supported living service to 14 people who live in shared houses on three separate sites. The service provides care and support to people with learning disabilities.

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 and relatives felt people receiving the service were safe. Risks to people were identified and responded to. Incidents and accidents were reported, analysed, and responded to. Staff demonstrated an awareness of adult safeguarding and knew how to report concerns

There was sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People were supported by a stable and consistent staff group. Staff had been recruited following safe recruitment practices. Staff had the knowledge and support to meet people’s needs effectively. They received regular training and staff felt supported by their colleagues and the registered manager to provide effective care.

Most areas of medicine administration were managed safely. There was guidance in place so staff knew how to administer medicines. Regular audits were taken on medicines to check and ensure they were managed safely.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interest and legally authorised under the MCA. Staff and the management team understood the MCA and how this impacted on the support they provided.

People were supported with their dietary needs and encouraged to eat healthily. Staff ensured people were supported to access health care professionals and manage on-going health conditions.

People were supported by staff who cared for them and treated them respectfully. Staff supported people to discuss their views on the support provided. Some people using the service had complex communication needs. Staff understood people’s individual gestures and how they communicated so people were able to express themselves. Relatives felt involved and consulted, where appropriate. People were supported to be as independent as possible; staff were proud of the achievements people had made.

Staff ensured they knew people’s individual preferences and needs. Support was provided in a way that met these. Where staff were responsible for supporting people to access activities, these were provided in a way that met people’s individual interests and likes.

People and relatives felt able to raise concerns. They felt confident that action would be taken to resolve any concerns they raised.

People, relatives, and staff were positive about the support and leadership of the registered manager. Staff told us they felt supported, listened to, and involved in the running of the service. There were quality monitoring processes in place to help monitor and identity issues that might affect the quality of the service provided.

On the day of this inspection the service was supporting six people to live in the community, all of whom lived on the same site as the service's registered office.

We looked at written records, which included people's care records, staff personnel files, medication systems and quality assurance documentation. We spoke with one person who used the service. We could not speak with other people due to their communication needs. We also spoke with the manager, the assistant manager and three members of care staff.

We considered our inspection findings to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? This is a summary of what we found based on our observations during the inspection.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with one person who used the service. In response to our question, "Do you like living here," they replied, "Yes." In response to our question, "Are the staff kind to you," they also responded, "Yes." We we not able to speak with other people due to their communication needs. We observed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were respectful and friendly and there was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the service.

Is the service responsive?

Care plans and risk assessments were informative, up to date and regularly reviewed. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about individual people's care needs, and this knowledge was consistent with the care records.

Staff told us that the manager and other senior staff were approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the service. We found that the provider listened to and acted upon views from people who used the service and their families.

Is the service safe?

The accommodation was adapted to meet the needs of the people living there. It was suited to caring for people with limited mobility and was properly maintained. The service was warm and clean.

People were protected by effective staff recruitment systems. The provider had systems in place that ensured the safe receipt, storage, administration and recording of medicines. There were proper processes in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the service effective?

People were cared for by staff who were properly trained and supported to develop professionally. Feedback received from people's families as part of the provider's own annual quality assurance survey was positive.

Is the service well led?

Staff said that they felt well supported by the manager, there was a good team ethic and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff, that the service was continuously improving and that people were satisfied with the service they were receiving.

We were unable to speak directly with people living in Allen Meale Way due to their complex needs. However, we spent some time in communal areas observing people’s interactions with staff. People seemed relaxed with the staff and engaged in what was going on around them. We spoke with relatives for three people living in the home, each of whom were complimentary about the care and support their family members received. One relative told us that the staff had, “…..brought out their [family member’s] personality.”

Most of the people living in Allen Meale Way were unable to communicate or give their consent verbally. Staff described how they interpreted how people were feeling in order to gauge their consent. Where significant decisions needed to be made and people did not have the capacity to give their consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We looked at the systems in place for the management of medicines. We found that the arrangements for the storage and recording of unused medications were inadequate and discussed this with the home's managers. The audit that should have identified these issues did not do so.

We reviewed records relating to staff recruitment and found that effective recruitment and selection processes were in place. Appropriate checks were made to ensure staff were suitable to carry out their roles.

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.

Many of the people who used the service were unable to verbally communicate effectively so we mainly observed how people were supported by staff. One person was able to respond to closed questions, answering yes or no. This person indicated that they liked living at Allen Meale Way and that they got on well with the other people living there. They confirmed that the staff were kind and that they got on well with them.

We saw that staff spoke to people in a calm and supportive way, offering choices and respecting them wherever they could. People received care and support in line with their support plan and we could see that the plans were kept under review and up to date. People were relaxed and happy, engaged in meaningful occupation that they enjoyed. Staff were knowledgeable about keeping people safe and the signs they should look out for in case someone was being abused. There were also processes in place to protect people from financial abuse.

We saw that there were enough staff on duty to support people effectively. Staff were skilled and experienced, with most having worked at the service for more than five years. They had received training that was relevant to their role.

There was a complaints procedure in place, a copy of which was provided to each person. The procedure was also written in pictorial form to help people understand the process. Staff were available to help people express concerns and to support them to make a complaint if they wished.