The inspection took place on 24 and 28 November 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The service was last inspected in February 2014. There were no breaches of regulation at that time.

Althea Park House is part of a group of specialist services which provides accommodation for up to seven young people with eating disorders. It is a division of Partnerships in Care 1 Limited, an organisation that provides specialist support to people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were six people living at Althea Park House.

There was a new manager working at Althea Park House. They told us they had been manager of the service for two months. An application had been received in respect of the new manager being registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 safe. Risk assessments were implemented and reflected the current level of risk to people. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment. The administration, recording and storage of medicine was safe. The manager took appropriate steps to ensure suitable people were employed to support people using the service.

People were receiving effective care and support. Staff received appropriate training which was relevant to their role. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where required the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The service was caring. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at the home. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respect and dignity and were observed providing care which promoted this.

The service was responsive. Care plans were person centred and provided sufficient detail to provide safe, high quality care to people. Care plans were reviewed and people were involved in the planning of their care. There was a robust complaints procedure in place and where complaints had been made, there was evidence these had been dealt with appropriately.

The service was well-led. Quality assurance checks and audits were occurring regularly and identified actions required to improve the service. Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the manager.

There were seven people at the home during our inspection. We spoke with one person who used the service and one relative. One relative told us, “We were given sufficient information about the care treatment and support available.”

The provider had practices and procedures in place to obtain people's consent to care and treatment. Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We saw evidence that assessments of people’s individual care needs had been undertaken by the multidisciplinary team. Care plans had been developed and included a summary of people’s life history and medical conditions. Five people were out on a day trip to London and two other people decided not to speak with us.

People had individualised menu plans which were based on their needs which were weighed and calorie counted. People were given support, where necessary, to eat and drink sufficient amounts for their needs.

The provider had policies and procedures which we saw were available on the premises for the staff to follow to keep people free from risk and abuse. We found that three members of staff needed to have an up to date DBS check.

People were cared for by staff that were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. The staff team were longstanding with several years of experience in care and who were committed to providing specialist care to people.

We found that while some processes for monitoring the quality of the service provided to people living in the home were in place, the provider may wish to note people may not have the opportunity to give feedback about the quality of the service they had received.