We carried out this announced inspection on 13 December 2016. The provider was given short notice of our inspection because the service provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure senior staff would be available in the office to assist with the inspection. This service was previously inspected in February 2014, during which no breaches of the legal requirements were identified.

Bristol Supported Living is a domiciliary service that provides care and support to people with a learning disability or a mental health condition in their own home. It is part of the Royal Mencap Society. At the time of our inspection, the service provided personal care to two people. One person received a 24 hour care package and a second person received a care package of 17.5 hours per week over seven days.

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.

People who received care spoke positively of the staff at the service. People said staff arrived for appointments on time. People’s individual risks were assessed and risk management plans were put in place when needed. People received their medicines as required and were supported by staff who had received training in safeguarding. Recruitment processes were safe.

People told us they received effective care from staff. Records showed that staff were supported through regular training and supervision. New staff at the service received an induction aligned to the Care Certificate. Where required, people were supported to make decisions in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People had access to healthcare professionals and staff supported people on visits to their GP and other healthcare professionals as needed. People received assistance with food and drink as required.

People told us they received care from caring staff. Staff demonstrated a commitment to providing person centred care and people’s involvement in designing their care provision was evident in care records. People’s additional needs had been recorded in care records, for example how to ensure staff communicated effectively with people and how to support people if they became anxious, stressed or upset. A complaints procedure was accessible and had been followed when needed.

People were positive about the management of the service. Staff told us they were supported by the management at the service and felt valued. They spoke of a strong team ethos to achieve a positive outcome for people. There were systems to communicate with staff and the provider had quality assurance systems in operation.

We spoke with four people who all told us that they received the support that they needed to make decisions about their lives. For example, two people told us that they were going shopping the following day to choose a new sofa. One person said that they were going for a job interview and staff would support them to get the bus. People were supported to be independent. A fourth person told us that they were able to go out independently to the shop, to a theatre group and to visit friends.

One person showed us their support plan. They told us that they had been asked for their views about their care and support and had been involved in writing their plan. They showed us where they had signed their plan to show that they consented to it. People said that they could give their views about the service that was provided in tenants’ meetings. All the people said that they would discuss any issues or concerns with one of the two managers of the service or a senior manager and they were confident that these would be addressed.

People had been involved in developing their care plans and they had consented to the care and support provided. There were suitable arrangements to manage medication to keep people safe. One person told us that they could manage their own medication.

The staff had had recruitment checks before they were employed to make sure that they were suitable to work with people. They also had provided information about their qualifications and experience to show that they had the skills to work with people. Staff received more training to keep their qualifications and skills up-to-date. One person said that they had been involved in interviewing for staff and deciding who to appoint.

There were arrangements to monitor the quality of the service provided and people were asked for their views about the service. There were also arrangements to make sure that risks were managed and people were kept safe.

We visited the office of Bristol Supported Living. The office was situated on the same site as part of their service which provided independent living accommodation for eight people. We were able to speak with three of the people who used this service and three members of staff that were supporting them. We also spoke with two of the service manager’s and the area administrator.

People experienced care and support that was tailored to their individual needs. People were able express their views, as far as they were able to do so, and were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People told us that they were confident that the service listened to them and any concerns that they had would be dealt with. One person advised that the service manager is ‘available to speak to at any time’. People told us they liked the staff that supported them.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and they were provided with training appropriate to their roles.

People were encouraged to lead full and active lives including accessing the community. On the day of our visit this included attendance at the local college, playing short mat bowls and engaging in paid employment. One person who lived in the supported living accommodation advised that there is ‘plenty to do’ and being independent is ‘encouraged’.

We found that the provider had robust systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the services provided.