This unannounced inspection took place on 15 and 16 November 2016. The home was previously inspected in November 2013 and was meeting the regulations at the time.

Arundel House provides accommodation and care for up to twelve people. People living at the home have a learning disability. On the day of our inspection, twelve people were living at the home. People have their own bedrooms, some with their own lounge areas. Some bedrooms had en-suite facilities. Communal space consisted of a large lounge area, kitchen and dining room.

The home was managed by the registered manager who was also the registered provider. 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.

There was a warm, friendly, family style atmosphere in the home and people were relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. The home was well decorated and adapted to meet people's needs. The home had a homely feel and reflected the interests and lives of the people who lived there, with photos of people and staff.

The focus of the home was on promoting people's rights and independence so that people live fulfilling lives. People followed activities they enjoyed and were given opportunities to gain new skills and to increase their independence. Support was planned and provided to take account of each person's needs, interests and preferences. People received personalised care that took account of their abilities and needs.

We saw people had a good relationship with staff. Key workers worked closely with people to help build a rapport, and supported people to contribute to their care plans. Care plans were comprehensive and contained detail specific to each person, showing how their care and support should be delivered according to their preferences. We saw care plan information was available in different formats appropriate to the needs and preferences of people who lived in the home.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and respond to abuse and systems were in place to minimise the risk of harm. Risks associated with people's care and support were effectively assessed and managed.

Staff were competent and skilled and had a good understanding of people's individual needs and preferences. Staff had developed warm and caring relationships with people living in the home. They treated people with respect for their dignity and privacy and promoted their independence.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people's needs. Safe recruitment practices were followed and staff were provided with regular supervision and support.

People were supported to make informed decisions and where a person lacked capacity to make certain decisions they were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported in the least restrictive way possible and staff were insightful about how to support people who presented behaviours which may challenge others.

Support was provided to enable people to have a balanced diet and to have enough to eat and drink.

People and staff planned weekly menus together and pictures of food or meals were used to support some people's understanding and to help them make choices.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare services to promote their health and in response to any changes in their health. These included GP's, dentists, opticians and hospital specialists.

There were effective systems in place for monitoring the safety and quality of the service. Audits viewed had identified any areas which were in need of improvement and action was taken to address these shortfalls.

Complaints were encouraged, investigated and responded to in good time. People we spok

Twelve people were living at Arundel House during our inspection. During this inspection we observed engagement and interaction between support workers and people who live at the home. We saw that support workers were kind and considerate in their approach to each person and were sensitive to the needs of people.

We found that people's consent had been obtained for care and treatment provided to them by the service. Records showed that people had regular opportunities to be involved in and discuss how they wished to have their care provided. Where people did not have the capacity to make significant decisions their rights had been protected.

People's health and social care needs had been assessed and care had been planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People had access to community and specialist health services.

People had been protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced support workers.

People who live at the home were aware of how to make it known to support workers if they were unhappy.

The home was last inspected in August 2009. During that inspection we found that the essential standards of quality and safety that we looked at were being met.

During our observations we saw staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. For example, staff offered help with personal care in a discreet manner.

We found that staff supported people to make choices and decisions about their daily lives. For example, throughout the day we heard staff asking people what they wanted to do.

We found care files to be comprehensive and detailed. Care plans were called 'A key to me' a name which had been chosen by people who lived at the home. The plans were kept in a box in people's rooms and focused on the person as an individual.

When we asked one person if they felt safe at the home they told us "Yes, yes". One person told us "If I get upset or sad I go and speak to the staff".

We saw that good training records were maintained. We saw a list of what training had been supplied and when training needed updating. We saw and staff confirmed that the home provided them with a thorough induction and ongoing training programme.

We saw that the home had an annual development plan. This contained details of the returned questionnaires that had been sent to staff, families, and health and social care professionals as well as people who lived at the home. We saw that people were very happy with the service provided.