Burton Cottages is a care home service. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

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 who used the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Burton Cottages provides accommodation and personal care for up to nine people who have learning disabilities and some associated physical and/or sensory disabilities. There were seven people using the service at the time of inspection. The building was split into two cottages adjoined in the middle. People had their own bathrooms attached to their bedrooms. There were also communal facilities if people did not want to use their own bathrooms. There was a kitchen, lounge and dining-room in each cottage for people to relax in. There was also a large garden, however this required some maintenance.

This is the service’s first inspection. They were previously registered under a different provider; however, the same people were living at the service and most staff had continued their employment with this provider.

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.

Although quality audits were completed regularly, they had not identified several shortfalls in record keeping. There were inconsistencies within care documentation and fire safety procedures. There was not a consistent overview of maintenance issues raised and whether actions had been completed. Incidents were not consistently reported to relevant safeguarding teams when people came to harm. Mental capacity documentation did not reflect the views of the person or how the decision was made that they lacked capacity. Some people whose support needs involved restrictive practises, did not have mental capacity assessments specific to these.

The building was not always clean and staff did not always demonstrate understanding of infection control when supporting people. The provider had not ensured sufficient safety checks such as applications to the Disclosure and Barring Service, photo identification and information about previous training, skills and knowledge were completed for agency staff. Permanent staff did have such checks completed.

There was not consistent oversight of complaints, which meant lessons learned, actions taken and feedback given was not always identified. People did not always receive information in their preferred communication method. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

People had assessments of risk which enabled them to do the activities they enjoyed and remain safe. Numerous safety checks were completed by the management team and external professionals to ensure the building was safe for people to live in. Medicines were administered safely by trained, competent staff and there were suitable staffing levels to meet the needs of people.

Staff had their skills and knowledge increased through regular training and supervision. There was a robust induction process, that staff felt helped them with their understanding of people and their routines. People’s nutritional needs were met and any changes to support needs were discussed with health and social care professionals to improve quality of life.

Interactions between people and staff were warm and demonstrative of strong relationships being built. Relatives and p