The inspection took place on the 12 January 2017 and was unannounced.

This service is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. 25 Beacon Close provides care and support for up to three people with learning disabilities. The service is part of a group of services managed by the Avenues Trust. The people who lived at Beacon Close had diverse and complex needs such as learning disabilities, autism and limited verbal communication abilities. There were two people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 19 February 2016, the service was rated as Good in all of the domains and had an overall Good rating.

At this inspection we found the registered manager and provider had consistently monitored the quality of their service to maintain a rating of Good.

There was a registered manager 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People continued to be protected against the risk of abuse. We observed that people were safe in their environment. Staff had received training about recognising the signs of abuse or neglect and knew what to look out for. Both the registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident in doing so.

The service had maintained risk assessments to identify and reduce risks that may be involved when meeting people’s needs such as inability to verbally communicate, which could lead to behaviour that challenges and details of how the risks could be reduced. This enabled the staff to take immediate action to minimise or prevent harm to people.

There were still sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from unsuitable staff. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and they discussed their performance during one to one meetings and annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

Staff were consistently supported by the registered manager and deputy manager and felt able to raise any concerns they had or suggestions to improve the service to people. Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs, and attended regular training courses. The staff followed policies about Equality, Diversity and Human Rights and continued to receive training about this.

The systems for the management of medicines were followed by staff and we found that people received their medicines safely. People had good access to health and social care professionals when required.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and the home complied with these requirements.

People’s care plans contained information about their personal preferences and focussed on individual needs. People and those closest to them were involved in regular reviews to ensure the support provided continued to meet their needs.

People were involved in assessment and care planning processes. Their support needs, likes and lifestyle preferences had been carefully considered and were reflected within the care and support plans available.

People were always motivated, encouraged and supported to be actively engaged in activities inside and outside of the home. People went out to their local community for activities and travel on hol

We inspected this home on 22 December 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.

25 Beacon Close is a residential home providing care and support for three people with learning disabilities. The service is part of a group of homes managed by the Avenues Trust. The people who lived at Beacon Close had diverse and complex needs such as learning disabilities, autism and limited verbal communication abilities.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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 were protected against the risk of abuse. We observed that people were safe in the home. Staff had received training about recognising the signs of abuse or neglect and knew what to look out for. Both the registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident in doing so.

The home had risk assessments in place to identify and reduce risks that may be involved when meeting people’s needs such as inability to verbally communicate, which could lead to behaviour that challenges and details of how the risks could be reduced. This enabled the staff to take immediate action to minimise or prevent harm to people.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs, and attended regular training courses. Staff were supported by their manager and felt able to raise any concerns they had or suggestions to improve the service to people.

Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from unsuitable staff. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and they discussed their performance during one to one meetings and annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

The systems for the management of medicines were followed by staff and we found that people received their medicines safely. People had good access to health and social care professionals when required.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and the home complied with these requirements.

Staff encouraged people to undertake activities and supported them to become more independent. Staff spent time engaging people in conversations, and spoke to them politely and respectfully.

People’s care plans contained information about their personal preferences and focussed on individual needs. People and those closest to them were involved in regular reviews to ensure the support provided continued to meet their needs.

People were involved in assessment and care planning processes. Their support needs, likes and lifestyle preferences had been carefully considered and were reflected within the care and support plans available.

People were always motivated, encouraged and supported to be actively engaged in activities inside and outside of the home. People went out to their local community for activities and travel on holidays.

Staff meetings took place on a regular basis. Minutes were taken and any actions required were recorded and acted on. People’s feedback was sought and used to improve the care.

People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

The registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration with the Commission.

We found that people who lived in this home were supported in a way that was person centred. They had their social and emotional needs as well as their physical care needs met. Staff explained to us that they tried to ensure that people were able to play an active role in their community. For example, one person volunteered at a local food bank. Staff told us they particularly enjoyed this as they liked meeting new people.

We observed staff supporting people living at the home and found that they encouraged them to make choices. We saw that staff gave people time to make their preferences known when supporting them to prepare lunch for example.

We reviewed the safeguarding policies and procedures in place that aimed to protect the people living at the home. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities for reporting concerns and we saw they had completed appropriate training.

We reviewed the way in which medicines were managed at the home and found that procedures were in place that would ensure the safe supply, storage and administration of medicines. This included regular audits that would highlight discrepancies. This meant problems would be dealt with in a timely manner.

We looked at the quality assurance processes in place at the home and found that there were robust systems to place to ensure that they were compliant with the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act (2008). This meant appropriate standards of care were being maintained.

During this inspection we spoke with staff and observed people who use the service. We saw that people were able to approach members of staff and people appeared comfortable in the home.

We looked at staff files and training records and saw that staff were given support and training that enabled them to perform their roles safely.

This visit was to follow up the findings from our previous visit in December 2011. The purpose of the visit was to assess if action had been taken in regards to concerns which had been highlighted at the last visit.

We did not spend time specifically talking with people living in the home at this visit, as it was not needful for our assessments. However, during our visit we saw that people were being supported around the home by staff in a kind and sensitive manner, in a way that promoted individual independence.

We were unable to verbally communicate with the people who used the service; we therefore used our observations to help inform some of our judgements.

We saw that people were being supported around the home by staff in a kind and sensitive manner, in a way that promoted individual independence.