Ashfield House provides accommodation for six people who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were six people living in the home. At the last inspection in July 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

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. The registered manager was absent on the day of inspection.

People continued to be supported in a safe way and where risks to people were identified they were managed effectively. Staff knew what abuse was and how to recognise and report it. Medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff available to offer individual support to people and recruitment processes ensured they were suitable to work within the home. Staff had received an induction and training to help them support people.

When needed capacity assessments had been completed and decisions made in people’s best interests. When people were being unlawfully restricted this had been considered.

People were treated in a kind and caring way. Their privacy and dignity was promoted by staff and they were encouraged to be independent. They were able to make choices around their day and were offered the opportunity to participate in activities they enjoyed. People were supported to access health care professionals and health care services when needed. They were offered a choice of foods they enjoyed.

Quality monitoring checks and feedback from people who used the service was obtained to bring about changes. Staff felt listened to and were provided with the opportunity to raise concerns. There was a complaints procedure in place and this was followed by the provider. The provider was displaying their previous rating in line with our requirements.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

Ashfield House was last inspected in June 2013. At that time the provider met all the regulations we checked. This current inspection was unannounced which meant that staff did not know we were visiting.

Ashfield House provides care to six people of both genders with a learning disability. The home has a registered manager who has been at the home since it opened in 2012. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Our observations and discussions with family members showed that there were positive caring relationships between staff and the people that lived at Ashfield House. We saw that people were treated with respect and care was based on people’s preferences and aimed at supporting people to develop their skills and to be as independent as possible. We observed that people appeared to be relaxed and their expressions indicated they were settled and happy. This was the view of family members we spoke with, who told us their relatives were settled and happy. They said they were very pleased with the care their relative received.

Staff were aware of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and people were supported to make decisions about their life. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions these were made in their best interest. Staff were following the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards provisions and applications were made when people’s liberty was restricted.

We found that people were having their needs assessed and that plans of care were in place. These were personalised and took account of each person’s individual wishes and preferences. People were supported to access health care services including attending well person clinics and specialist services. People received effective care that was based around each person’s individual needs and preferences. Risks to people were identified and plans were in place to make sure people were kept safe whilst ensuring their rights were promoted.

People were supported to undertake activities of their choice. These took place both in the home and out in the community. Some people attended college and others went to a work placement. People took part in aspects of running the home including keeping their home clean and doing their laundry and helping to prepare and serve food.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place that involved the people that lived at Ashfield House. Staff were supported and trained to ensure they were able to provide care at the required standard to ensure people’s needs were met.

We saw that systems were in place to monitor and check the quality of care and to make sure the environment was safe and well maintained. There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and changes were put in place to improve the service. This meant that people were benefiting from a service that was continually looking how it could provide better care for people.

We looked at care plans for three of the people who lived there. They covered a range of needs and had been reviewed regularly to ensure that staff had up to date information. There were also detailed assessments about the person's health that included specific care plans. All the staff we spoke with had knowledge of the needs of the people who lived there.

We saw that staff helped and supported people. We spoke with one person who lived there who said: “It’s nice here". We saw that people received care that met their individual needs.

People were being cared for by staff who had knowledge of keeping people safe from the risk of abuse.

We found that there were regular audits and quality checks. We also saw that the provider had learnt from incidents to improve the quality and effectiveness of the care they delivered.