This inspection took place on 24 May 2017 and was unannounced. Blyton Court provides care for people living with a learning disability. It provides accommodation for up to 18 people who require personal and nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living at the home.

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.

On the day of our inspection staff interacted well with people. People and their relatives told us that they felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew how to keep people safe. The provider had systems and processes in place to keep people safe.

Medicines were administered and managed safely. Although PRN protocols were usually in place we found occasions where they were not.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. If the location is a care home the Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS, and to report on what we find.

People had limited choices at mealtimes. The mealtime experience meant that some people did not receive their meals in an environment conducive to their needs. People had their nutritional needs assessed and were supported with their meals to keep them healthy. People had access to drinks and snacks during the day. Where people had special dietary requirements we saw that these were provided for.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to healthcare professionals such as the district nurse and GP and also specialist professionals.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff responded in a timely and appropriate manner to people. Staff were kind and sensitive to people. Staff were provided with training on a variety of subjects to ensure that they had the skills to meet people’s needs. The provider had a training plan in place and staff had received supervision. People were encouraged to enjoy a range of social and leisure activities. They were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

Staff and people who lived at the home felt able to raise concerns and issues with management. Relatives were aware of the process for raising concerns and were confident that they would be listened to. Regular audits were carried out and action plans put in place to address any issues which were identified. Accidents and incidents were recorded and investigated.

The provider had informed us of notifications. Notifications are events which have happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about.

This inspection took place on 25 May 2016 and was unannounced.

Blyton Court specialises in the care of people who have a learning disability. It provides accommodation for up to 18 people who require personal and nursing care. On the day of our inspection there were 13 people living at the home. The home is divided into two units the Old Hall which provides accommodation for up to five people and the main unit which provides care for up to 13 people. The units are interconnected but staffed separately.

At the time of our inspection there was not 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.

On the day of our inspection we found that staff interacted well with people and people were cared for safely. The provider had systems and processes in place to safeguard people and staff knew how to keep people safe. Risk assessments were in place and accidents and incidents were monitored and recorded. Medicines were administered and stored safely.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).If the location is a care home Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS, and to report on what we find.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals such as a dietician and GP. Staff were kind and sensitive to people when they were providing support. Staff knew how to provide care to people. People had limited access to leisure activities and excursions to local facilities.

People had their privacy and dignity considered. Staff were aware of people’s need for privacy and dignity.

People were supported to eat enough to keep them healthy. People had access to drinks during the day. People were not offered choices at mealtimes. Where people had special dietary requirements we saw that these were provided for.

There were sufficient staff available to care for people appropriately. Staff were provided with training on a variety of subjects to ensure that they had the skills to meet people’s needs.

Staff felt able to raise concerns and issues with management. We found relatives were clear about the process for raising concerns and were confident that they would be listened to. The provider recorded and monitored complaints.

Audits were carried out on a regular basis and action put in place to address any concerns and issues.

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives and the staff who supported them. We also looked at three records and observed care.

We considered the findings of our inspection to answer questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service caring?

We saw how members of staff treated people and observed care. We saw care was delivered well and in a respectful way. We saw staff were kind and attentive and encouraged people to be independent. We saw staff showed patience and gave encouragement when they supported people.

We observed when staff supported people they did so at the person's own pace and reassured people if they were upset.

We spoke with a relative who told us, “This home is so friendly.”

Is the service responsive?

We saw people's individual physical, mental and social care and support needs were assessed and met. This included people's individual choices and preferences as to how they liked to spend their day. During our visit people were offered support and activities to meet their needs and preferences. For example one person watched their favourite film whilst another person played a musical instrument.

We observed staff responded to people in a positive manner and respected their individual preferences.

We observed that staff obtained people's consent before they carried out any care. For example, they asked people if they wanted to go outside to be read to and where they wanted to sit.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people's individual activities were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these risks.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in place. Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are laws protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. At the time of our inspection no one was deprived of their liberty.

We found where people lacked capacity their best interests had usually been considered, however the records did not always specify the areas which the best interest decision related to.

Staff had been trained to understand when an application for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

The relative we spoke with told us, “Feel xxx is safe.”

We saw where people's behaviour challenged the service plans were in place to assist staff to manage the issues and keep people safe from harm.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. The home had recently been refurbished and was well maintained therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

Our observations found that members of staff knew people's individual health and wellbeing needs. There was a process in place to ensure staff were aware of people's changing needs.

We saw that people responded well to the support they received from staff members. The relative we spoke with told us their relative had improved since coming to the home.

We observed that staff responded to people's needs in a timely manner.

Arrangements were in place to ensure people's physical health needs were met. For example, where people had specific issues with their health, such as epilepsy guidance, was in place to support staff to provide effective care.

We found gaps in a person's record regarding repositioning which meant it was difficult to monitor care the person had received.

Is the service well led?

Staff said that they felt supported and trained to safely do their job. Training plans were in place to ensure staff had the appropriate skills to meet people's needs.

Quality assurance systems were in place and people were listened to.

We spoke with a relative who told us they felt able to raise issues and if they needed to complain they would know how to do this.

We used a number of different ways to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was because some people had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us about their experiences.

During our visit we spoke with the manager and three members of staff, including the cook.

We observed the interaction between people and staff through the use of the Short Observational Framework Tool (SOFI). Throughout our visit we saw staff positively interacted with people.

We also saw people were engaged in activity with staff members at regular intervals. One member of staff said, "The whole staff team have got to know people well enough to understand how each person communicates. This helps us to make sure people are happy in the things they do."

We found that people were supported using records that were maintained and reviewed regularly in order to make any changes needed to support people safely.

The manager told us and records showed meeting people’s nutrition and dietary needs was an essential part of the care provided. There was a range of balanced, nutritious meals and drinks available throughout the day that people had access to.

We knew that the manager and home owner had systems in place to effectively monitor assess and evaluate the homes performance.

We also found were people had concerns or raised complaints there was a clear policy and process in place to acknowledge respond to them.

Due to the complex needs of the people using the service we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. We spoke to a relative of one person who was visiting the service. We also observed staff providing support when people needed care, during meal times and when people were undertaking individual or group activities. We looked at records. These included care plans, minutes of meetings and surveys undertaken by the company.

We observed that people were receiving care in the way described in their care plans and records. We saw that people were offered choice and staff respected their privacy and dignity while encouraging them to be as independent as possible.

A relative who was visiting the service told us, “They (staff) talk to my relative about everything they are going to do before they do it. They (staff) understand needs and how to provide care in the right way.”

We also observed how people enjoyed the daily social activities staff that the home had organised. We saw there was a wide range of things for people to take part in as well as opportunities for them to go out into the community with support on a regular basis.

In this report the name of the registered manager appeared. They were not in post or managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of our inspection. Their name appeared because they were still the registered manager on our register at the time of our inspection.

Due to the needs of people who lived at Blyton Court we used different methods to reach a judgement on the quality of the service. We spoke with three relatives about their views. We also spoke with the regional manager, the acting manager, a nurse, two care staff, an activities co-ordinator and the cook. We were aware that the acting manager had only recently taken up the post.

We looked at records and information about how the service was managed. We conducted a tour of the building and observed interactions between the care staff and people residing at the home.

Records we saw showed Mental Capacity Act assessments were inadequate and ‘best interest’ procedures were not in place. Additionally the records showed that people’s needs had been assessed but people did not always receive care, treatment and support which met their needs.

We saw people being offered choices and opportunities which were respected and responded to.

One relative we spoke with said, “They are happy there, more so than anywhere they have been”.

We spoke with three members of the staff team who told us they had not received training in managing behaviours, de-escalation techniques or how to keep people who lived at the home or themselves safe from physical harm.

We looked at records and found some people did not have correct information about their needs and how these should be met.