The inspection was carried out on 14 February 2017, and was an unannounced inspection.

Avenues South East - 356 Station Road is a residential home providing care and support for two people with learning disabilities, autism and limited verbal communication. The service is part of a group managed by the Avenues Trust. At the time of our visit, two people lived at Avenues South East - 356 Station Road.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 29 July 2014, the service was rated Good in all domains and overall.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People continued to be safe at Avenues South East - 356 Station Road. People were protected against the risk of abuse. We observed that people felt safe in the service. Staff recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse or harm. They followed appropriate guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and welfare. There were enough staff to keep people safe. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to check the suitability and fitness of new staff.

Each person had an up to date, personalised support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly. Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services. Staff encouraged people to actively participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect ensuring people's privacy was maintained, particularly when being supported with their personal care needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager ensured the complaints procedure was made available in an accessible format. Regular checks and reviews of the service continued to be made to ensure people experienced good quality safe care and support.

The registered manager provided good leadership. They checked staff were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the service could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

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.

The inspection was unannounced. 356 Station Road is a residential home providing care and support for two people with learning disabilities. The home is part of a group of homes managed by the Avenues Trust Support Services.

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 and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. There was a safeguarding adult protection policy in place, which detailed the actions to be taken by the provider to help keep people safe. All staff had been trained in safeguarding adults. Staff gave clear explanations of the different types of abuse and they knew which action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLs. We saw that mental capacity assessments were carried out for people who might not have the capacity to make certain decisions.

There were sufficient and competent staff on duty with the right skill mix to make sure that the service was safe and that staff could respond to unforeseen events. People were protected by a robust recruitment system which ensured that staff who supported them were suitable for this role.

Staff were provided with the support they needed to enable them to provide appropriate care and support for people. Individual appraisals and regular one to one sessions were arranged with each member of staff to ensure they were trained effectively and were competent to carry out their roles.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. They were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. People followed a balanced diet that promoted healthy eating and individual dietary needs were catered for. People’s health care needs were met. They were registered with a medical practice and records showed regular contact with their GPs, dentists, chiropodists and other health professionals where needed. People felt comfortable to discuss their health needs with staff and were involved in the review of their health plans. For example, one person reminded staff of their GP’s appointment during our visit and the person was supported accordingly.

People's care needs were assessed before they moved to the home. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. Staff were knowledgeable about how to support each person in ways that were right for them. Staff were able to describe the needs of people who used the service and the ways in which individuals were supported.

People had the privacy they needed and were supported and encouraged to be as independent as they were able and chose to be. People were encouraged and supported to take part in a variety of appropriate activities inside and outside the home. Each person had an individual weekly activity plan.

People were made aware of the complaints system. This was provided in a format that met their needs. There had been no formal complaints about the service in the last year.

The manager had an ‘open door’ policy, and actively encouraged people to engage with them, which showed us that there was an open and positive culture which focussed on people. There were strong links with the local community. The home worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a cohesive way.

A quality assurance system was in place and used to drive continuous improvement. This included regular audits of all aspects of the service. People, their representatives and staff were asked for their views and these were acted upon.

We found that people who lived at this home were involved in the way their care was planned and delivered. Their preferences were respected concerning how they were supported. The home had a service user involvement strategy in place. This provided clear guidance to prompt staff to involve people as much as possible in their care through person centred planning for example.

We saw that the way care and support was provided by the staff at the home protected and promoted the welfare of the people living there by ensuring that their needs were accurately identified and could therefore be met.

We reviewed the management of safeguarding at the home and found that staff understood their responsibilities and systems were in place that protected people from abuse.

Staff we spoke with during our visit told us that they were supported to do their jobs. They felt that the training they had received was sufficient and useful. Managers at the service were described as approachable and we heard that they had an 'open door' policy. This meant staff could access additional support if they felt they needed it.

We looked at the way in which the quality of the service was assessed and monitored. We found that systems were in place that ensured a good standard of care was maintained at the home due to the fact that the quality of the service was appropriately monitored.

We spoke with people who used the service who told us that they were happy with the care that they received.

We observed staff interacting with people and saw that they knew each person’s individual needs. Staff told us that they understood the support that people needed and were trained to be able to deliver the support safely.

We looked at records that showed that each person had a care plan that was individual to them and gave information to staff about their level of need and how staff could best support them.

People told us, or indicated that they liked the home and the staff. One person showed us around the home and told us that they were happy and liked living there.

People we spoke with said that they liked their rooms and told us that they had helped decorate them. One person told us that there was plenty to do both inside and outside the home.

One person told us that staff were very helpful and kind.

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.