Burgess House provides short-break respite care for up to eight adults with learning difficulties. Subject to availability people and or their representatives can choose the date and length of their stay at the service which is taken from their local authority allocation.

An emergency service for up to two people who are unable to return home is also provided at Burgess House. This means that people move into the service and, for many reasons, may be unable to return home, this could be because of a safe guarding incident for example. These people could be there a few weeks or a few years depending on the situation.

People are referred to the service by the local authority and are supported by staff to find a new place to live.

At the time of this unannounced inspection of 25 October 2017 there were seven people who were present who used the service.

At the last inspection of 23 June 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

A registered manager was 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. They were supported by a team leader who was in charge of the day to day running of the service.

The service continued to provide a safe service to people. This included systems in place intended to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, mobility, nutrition and with their medicines. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. They were available when people needed assistance and had been recruited safely.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the care provided and the approach of the team leader and staff. People told us that they felt safe and well cared for. Staff had developed good relationships with people. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services. Systems were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support and were supported to participate in meaningful activities. They received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.

People were supported by staff who were trained and supported to meet their needs. They 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.

The management team and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The management team knew how to make a referral if required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints and took action where needed.

People, relatives and staff told us the registered manager and team leader were accessible, supportive and had good leadership skills. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.

This inspection took place on 23 June 2015 and was unannounced.

Burgess House provides respite care for up to eight adults with learning difficulties. On the day of our inspection there were eight people using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 were supported well and their needs met. All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe, satisfied and happy with the respite service they received.

Staff were kind, respectful and promoted people’s dignity, autonomy and independence.

There were suitable arrangements for the safe storage, management and disposal of medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People’s best interests had been assessed. Where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions, consent had been obtained.

People’s needs were met and they were supported to take part in a wide range of personalised activities which catered for their individual needs and wishes.

Systems, audits and surveys were used to good effect in monitoring performance, managing risks and planning for continuous improvement of the service.

Staff received the support and training and opportunities for professional development which enabled them to carry out the duties they were employed to perform to a good standard.

The manager and provider demonstrated a clear vision and operated a set of values based on personalised care, promotion of people’s independence and empowerment. There were positive relationships between staff and management. People who used the service and staff were actively involved in developing the service and staff inspired to provide a quality service.

We talked with three of the people who used the service. They told us that they liked using the respite service. People also told us that they got on well with the staff.

People also told us that their rooms were comfortable and that they had everything they needed to make their stay relaxed and enjoyable. One person told us, “They (the staff) are good.”

We observed that the staff were attentive to people’s needs. Staff interacted with people in a friendly, respectful and professional manner. We saw that staff sought people’s agreement before providing any support or assistance.

We saw that the service managed and recorded medication appropriately and that the organisation had systems in place to enable people to make complaints and for them to be managed properly.

We spoke with two staff members, they told us they were supported through supervision and that they believed they were trained sufficiently to support people living with learning disabilities in all aspects of their lives.

People told us that they "Could look at their care plans" and were involved in their care planning. We found that prior to admission to the service peoples needs were assessed. Whilst staying at Burgess House people were supported to continue with their usual daily activities. Care plans and risk assessments were in place.

However we found that there was no documented monitoring system in place for these records to ensure people were protected against the risks of receiving unsafe or inappropriate treatment.

The provider did not have a process in place to regularly seek the views and experiences of services users and other professionals. This meant the provider could not come to an informed view as to the standard of care and treatment being provided.