This inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 and 16 October 2017.

Bridgwater Court is a two storey modern property. It offers individual accommodation and care in single occupancy flats. The home is registered for up to 12 people who may have a Learning Disability and Mental Health difficulties. All of the flats are furnished to meet individual choices. There is a communal hallway which provides access to all the flats. The ground floor flats are accessible to those people who have mobility and access problems.

At the last inspection in March 2016 the service was rated Good. However two domains had been rated requires improvement and the service should have been rated as Requires Improvement overall. This inspection had been brought forward to check on the progress of the service. .

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

At the last inspection people told us they did not feel safe, relatives said they felt staff were young and lacked experience. There was a high staff turnover and people lacked consistency of care. At this inspection everybody spoken with told us they felt safe living at Bridgwater Court both with other people living there and the staff team. We saw a successful recruitment programme had been carried out. This meant people were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them, well.

At the last inspection we found that although there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided these were not being used effectively to drive improvement. People and relatives did not feel listened to. At this inspection we found people felt staff and management listened to them. The systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided were being used to identify shortfalls and drive improvement.

There was not a registered manager in post, however an application for the manager to be registered with the Care Quality Commission had been submitted and was being processed. 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 felt safe at the home. They told us they trusted staff and knew other people living in the home well. One person said, “This is the place I feel safe and I don’t want to go anywhere else.”

There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

Staff supported people to manage risk through education and discussing risk with them. They agreed ways with people to enable them to manage their own risk enabling them to access the community safely.

People received effective support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People told us they thought staff knew them well and understood their individual needs.

Staff received an in-depth induction before they worked with people. The induction included training in identifying behaviours that might challenge and how to recognise individual triggers.

Staff were passionate about ensuring people’s human rights were upheld and ensured their choices, decisions and goals were respected.

People received support from caring and kind staff. Staff were openly proud of the achievements people had made and clearly had a very good relationship with the people they supported.

The service was responsive and people were supported to make progress and achieve goals set by them so they could lead the life they aspired to. Staff looked at creative and innovative ways to ensure the support people received was responsive to their individual needs.

The service was well led. There were systems in

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 March 2016.

Bridgwater Court is a three storey modern property. It offers individual accommodation in single occupancy flats. Bridgewater Court is part of Community Therapeutic Services (CTS).

The home is registered for up to 12 people who have a Learning Disability and/or Mental Health difficulties difficulties and who may present behaviours which challenge the service being provided. There is a communal hallway which provides access to all the flats. The ground floor flats are accessible to people who may have mobility or access problems. At the time of the inspection there were nine people living there. We last inspected this service in February 2015.No concerns were raised at that inspection.

There is 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.

Although staff knew how to recognise and report abuse they felt they were not always able to keep people safe. People told us they did not always feel safe. Where allegations or concerns were brought to the providers attention they ensured issues were investigated

Staff told us and records confirmed all staff received training in how to recognise and report abuse. Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of what may constitute abuse and to report it. Staff discussed how they had raised concerns regarding behaviours in the service. Measures were in place to address concerns raised by staff.

Staff had received training in aspects of safeguarding and they knew how to identify and report any concerns. Staff had received training, to enable them to effectively support each person’s mental and physical health needs. New staff received induction training before they began working with people. All staff received ongoing training including daily “bite sized” training at handovers.

Care plans contained risk assessments which outlined measures in place to enable people to maintain their independence with minimum risk to themselves and others. Behaviour support plans were in place for people who needed additional support when they were anxious or upset.

Staff knew how to protect the legal rights of people who did not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. DoLS applications had been submitted where relevant. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent before carrying out care tasks. We observed staff seeking consent from people before carrying out any tasks for them.

People’s medicines were administered safely by staff who had received specific training and supervision to carry out the task. Medicines were stored and administered safely. We observed medicines being administered and found safe procedures were followed. People who managed their own medicines had the appropriate risk assessments in place.

People received the support they required to purchase food and drink of their choice and were encouraged to make healthy choices in nutrition and diets. People that needed additional support were supported to maintain good health. Food was seen to be prepared with the support of the staff members were needed other people were more independent. One person told us “I like to make really hot food. I will always add more spices as that is how I like to cook”.

People were able to take part in a range of activities according to their interests. During our inspection people went out to the shops or for walks or to see health professionals, they discussed their chosen activities. One person discussed how they are getting known in the community by people in coffee shops and how they were also getting to know people, and would now stop to say hello.Each person had a personal key to their flat.

This was the first inspection of the service which was registered in April 2013. During our visit we spoke with two people who used the service, the provider and management and two members of staff.

We were told that people were happy living at Bridgwater Court. We saw there were interactions between people and staff, often sharing banter and jokes. We observed that staff were skilled in recognising and responding to people's needs whilst maintaining peoples’ dignity.

The atmosphere in the home was relaxed and inclusive; we saw that people were making choices about their daily life. We were told “I am able to make choices about what I do and how I access the local community.”

We read the care records for four people which described the care and support they required and how staff should provide it. Staff spoken with had a very clear understanding of the support needs of people who lived in the home.

The care records showed that risk assessments were carried out and reviewed to protect people using the service and staff delivering the care and support.

We saw that the environment was comfortably furnished to individual tastes and the communal areas were well maintained.

Bridgwater Court is a three storey modern property. It offers individual accommodation in single occupancy flats. The home is registered for up to 12 people who have a Learning Disability and/or Mental Health difficulties and who may present behaviours which challenge the service being provided. There is a communal hallway which provides access to all the flats. The ground floor flats are accessible to people who may have mobility or access problems.

This inspection took place on 2, 11 and 12 February 2015 and was unannounced.

There is a registered manager who is responsible for 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.

We last inspected this service on 24 June 2014 and 3 July 2014. Following this inspection we asked the provider to make improvements in how they protected people from the risk of abuse and how they assessed the needs of people prior to them moving to the home to ensure they could be met.

Following the inspection in June and July 2014 the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make, which they would complete by December 2014. During this latest inspection we looked to see if these improvements had been made.

The service had made the required improvements since our last inspection. People’s safety had been improved; the provider now gave greater consideration to the impact of people’s behaviours on others living in the home. We saw comprehensive and detailed preparations had been made for one person who might come to live at the home. People who had already moved to the home had a detailed assessment which identified their background, wishes, preferences and support needs.

People said they felt the home was a safe place for them. They were able to take risks as part of their day to day lives. People said staff understood their needs and provided the care and support they needed. One person said “I like living in my flat; I’m happy here. It’s good fun sometimes.”

The service supported people with diverse lifestyles and care needs. People used many community facilities and were encouraged to be as independent as they could be. People said they were happy with the care they received. One person said “I wouldn’t want to move from here.”

People had one to one staffing and also received high levels of support from health and social care professionals, both from the provider’s own clinical team and externally. Staff provided care to people whose behaviour challenged the service provided in a supportive and planned way. One person said “When I’m like that staff give me time and space to calm down.”

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support; they spoke with staff if they had any problems or concerns. People knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to but felt that issues could usually be resolved informally.

Staff had good knowledge of people including their needs and preferences. Communication throughout the staff team was good. Staff were well supported and well trained; there were good opportunities for on-going training and for obtaining additional qualifications. All staff spoken with said the training and support they received was “very good.”

There was a management structure in the home which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The management team strived to provide the best level of care possible to people with complex needs. Staff had adopted the same ethos and this showed in the way they supported people.

There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and plan ongoing improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people’s views about the running of the home. One person’s relative confirmed communication was “two way.” They said the deputy manager and key workers kept them well informed.