Badgers House Care Home consists of two buildings located next to each other within its own grounds. Three people live in the bungalow and three people in the house. At the time of our inspection six people with learning disabilities were living at the service.

This inspection took place on 30 August 2017. The inspection was unannounced, this meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

At the last inspection in December 2014 the service was rated ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found 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.

We found the service provided was designed and delivered around the individual needs of the six people. They received care and support from skilled staff that were well managed.

Staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Individual risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work with people to assess their suitability. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Arrangements were made for people to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. People had access to the food and drink they chose when they wanted it. The physical environment was personalised and met people’s needs.

People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff that understood their needs and knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and their human rights. The care and support people received was highly individualised. They were offered a range of activities both at the service and in the local community. Staff actively sought to gain people’s views.

There was a clear and effective management structure in place. The registered manager and team leaders were well liked and respected by people and staff. The vision, values and culture of the service were understood by all staff. They provided good leadership and management and were in turn well supported by the provider. The safety and quality of service people received was monitored on a regular basis and where shortfalls were identified they were acted upon.

The service was made up of two buildings located next to each other within its own grounds. Three people lived in the bungalow and three people lived in the main house. The houses were staffed separately.

People were kept safe from abuse because staff understood what abuse was and the action they should take to ensure actual or potential abuse was reported. Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff said there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty at all times.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had received appropriate training, and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

All medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. The service had policies and procedures for dealing with medicines and these were adhered to.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals when they required specialist help. Care records showed advice had been sought from a range of health and social care professionals.

The registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of the service provided for people. Systems were in place to check on the standards within the service. These included regular audits of; care records, medicine management, health and safety, infection control and staff training and supervision.

Activities were personalised for each person. People made suggestions about activities they wanted to participate in each day. People were offered the choice if they wanted to go out with staff daily. An additional member of staff was on duty to enable people to access community facilities.

The people using the service had complex needs which meant that they were not able to directly tell us about their experiences. We therefore used a number of different methods to help us understand their life at the home. When we inspected there were six people living in the home. We spoke with three people who used the service and six staff. We also made our own observations during the visit of other people that were unable to communicate with us.

We spent time in communal areas of the home so that we could observe the direct care, attention and support that they received. We observed here was constant interaction between staff and people in the home. People were relaxed, happy and comfortable in each other's company.

The care records showed us that people's health needs had been assessed before they came to live in the home. These records included information from health and social care professionals which helped ensure people got the care and treatment they needed.

The home provided nutritional meals and the menu included meals selected by people who lived in the home. The service and the building were monitored and risk assessed to ensure they were suitable for the people who used them.

We met five people who lived at Badgers Close during our inspection. Not all people were able to verbally tell us about the care they received and if they were happy. Therefore we observed how staff interacted and supported people, to enable us to make a judgement on how their needs were being met.

Badgers house care home is split into two separate units called ‘the house’ and ‘the bungalow’. Three people live in each area, which is staffed as two separate units.

We observed some people being supported and examined their care plan documentation. This was to ascertain if an appropriate level of care was being provided, in line with their assessed needs. People using the service appeared relaxed around the staff that were supporting them.

We saw that people were supported to live as independently as possible within their own individual flats. People living in Badgers house care home had a range of complex support needs. The care was delivered to meet their individual need. We observed people were supported to access the local community and were also supported with all aspects of their health and well being.

The staff demonstrated that they had an understanding and awareness of the complex needs of people who lived at Badgers Close. Staff we spoke with told us they felt they provided a high quality service to people living in Badgers house care home.

We met the 6 people who lived at Badgers Close when we carried out our inspection. Due to their disabilities people were not able to tell us directly what they thought of Badgers Close. We relied on our observations of people with the staff who supported them, to help inform our judgments about the service.

We saw that people were supported to live a fulfilling life in the home and in the community. People were supported with their range of complex needs. People were being supported to maintain their health, safety and wellbeing.

We saw care plans and risk assessments records that explained how to care for people and how to protect their safety and wellbeing in Badgers Close as well as in the community. We saw that care plans and risk assessments were not all being consistently regularly reviewed and updated. Care Plans and risk assessments need to be reviewed and checked regularly, to make sure they are up to date and reflect any changes in people’s needs.

The staff demonstrated that they had an understanding and awareness of the complex needs of people who lived at Badgers Close.

People were helped to stay safe at Badgers Close and were protected from abuse. The staff had been on training courses to help them to understand how to safeguard them from abuse. Staff knew who to report an allegation of abuse to. They were aware of the role of the local authority in the safeguarding processes that would be followed in the event of an allegation of abuse being made at Badgers Close.

The number of staff on duty mostly met the needs of people who used the service. However the numbers of staff on duty in the bungalow at weekends did not always meet people’s needs. This was evidenced by what had been written in the care plans of the three people who lived in the bungalow. We saw written evidence that they needed 2 staff to help them in a number of areas of their daily life’s including supporting people to stay safe. With only two staff on duty this meant there was not enough staff to always meet those people needs.

We saw methods were in use to check monitor and improve the quality of the service people received. We saw there were systems to review and learn from critical incidents and occurrences that may have impacted on people's health and wellbeing.