This inspection took place on 1 February 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location is a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Brentwood 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. The service provides accommodation for up to four people with autism or learning disabilities in a house situated in its own grounds with an enclosed garden area. Four people were using the service at the time of the inspection.

The service had a registered manager. 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 care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service could live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

We inspected the service in December 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust and included Disclosure and Barring Service checks and references. Staffing levels were appropriate to the needs of the people using the service to ensure people had access to the community and recreational activities.

Relatives felt the service was safe. Policies and procedures were in place to keep people safe such as safeguarding, whistleblowing, and accident and incident policies. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns they may have. Medicines were managed safely by staff who were appropriately trained.

Risks to people were assessed on admission and reviewed on a regular basis. Risk assessments were detailed, individualised, and gave staff guidance about how to help keep people safe. People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place in case of an emergency. The provider had a business continuity plan for staff to follow in case of disruption to the service.

Staff were trained in a range of subjects such as first aid, food hygiene and fire warden training. Staff had also received training to support them to meet the needs of people who used the service, such as autism and specialist communication methods and epilepsy.

Staff supported people to access appropriate healthcare, such as GPs and speech and language therapists. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and their weight was monitored on a regular basis. The provider ensured people were offered a healthy and varied diet.

Staff received regular supervisions and an annual appraisal.

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.

People were encouraged to make choices in everyday decisions. Staff provided support, guidance and care in a dignified manner, showing people respect whilst ensuring privacy when necessary.

Care plans were personalised and contained in-depth information to cover every aspect of the person’s daily needs. Personal preferences, likes and dislikes were acknowledged in care plans to ensure support was individualised to the person. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure staff had up to date information.

People enjoyed a varied range of activities both inside and outside the home. The service had positive links with the communit

This inspection took place on 14 and 29 December 2015. The last inspection of this home was carried out on 20 August 2013. The service met all the regulations we inspected against at that time.

Brentwood provides care and support for up to four people who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of the visit three people were using the service.

The home had a registered manager. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is being run.

People had complex needs so not everyone was able to share their views about the service with us, but we spent time with people and observed care and support. We spoke to family members to obtain their views of the service. There were no concerns raised by other health and social care organisations that we contacted prior to the inspection.

Relatives felt involved in decisions about their family members’ care. They described the service as supportive. One relative told us, “Staff are always caring and helpful with [family member], they seem to be more settled here.” We saw good relationships between relatives and staff. Staff knew how to communicate with people in an accessible way using gestures, pictures and sign language.

There were some gaps in daily records, and some records lacked detail. People’s care records and risk assessments showed us that people were encouraged to be independent. We saw support plans included the promotion of life skills to include shopping and cooking. People’s choices were acknowledged wherever possible. Each person had a weekly planner detailing leisure and social activities. Dietary needs were assessed and appropriate diets provided in line with people’s needs and cultural beliefs

People’s health needs were regularly monitored and assessed. The service contacted other health care professionals when necessary, such as GPs and dieticians. We saw that the service supported people to attend educational facilities.

People had individual bedrooms which allowed privacy; these were comfortably furnished in accordance with people’s choices and preferences. Accommodation took into account peoples support needs with the use of assistive technology.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) regarding people who lacked capacity to make a decision and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to make sure any restrictions were in people’s best interests.

Staff had an understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing and told us they would speak to

management if they had any concerns. They felt confident that management would listen and act on any concerns they raised.

Recruitment practices at the service were thorough and safe. Staff training was up to date and staff received regular supervision and appraisal. We looked at current and recent staffing rotas for the service. There were enough staff employed to make sure people were supported. Relatives told us their family members had the correct level of staff supporting them in the home and the wider community.

Systems were in place for recording and managing safeguarding concerns, complaints, accidents and incidents. Relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. Records were available which showed the service responded to complaints and lessons were learnt from such events.

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Regular audits were carried out by the registered manager and operations manager. A development plan was in place for service improvements.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way. Records were up to date with no gaps. A signature sheet was in place to indicate who was able to administer medicines. Medicines were

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. At the time of this inspection there was one person using the service and they had gone to stay with relatives for their summer break. To find out people’s views of the service we contacted the person their relatives and staff by telephone.

We found that the people who used the service were receiving the care and support they needed. For example, the staff we spoke with could describe how they met the assessed needs of the person they were providing with care.

We found that the people who were using the service were protected from abuse as the provider had procedures in place for the staff to follow if they suspected anyone was at risk of abuse.

We found that the provider has taken steps to provide care in an environment that is suitably designed and adequately maintained.

The complaints procedures had been made available to the people who had used the service and their relatives. This was provided in a format that met their needs.

We found that records, which the provider is required to keep, to protect the peoples' safety and wellbeing, were being stored securely and could be located promptly when needed. For example, the care records were kept in secure cabinets.