Canna is a care home which provides care and support for up to four people who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. The home is part of the House of Light Trust, which is a non-profit making organisation. Canna is situated near to Rotherham town centre with easy access to public transport and local amenities.

We inspected the home on 21 June 2017 and the visit was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in March 2015 when we rated it as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Canna’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

All of the people we spoke with who lived or were visiting Canna spoke positively about the home, the staff, the food, the activities and the care provision.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people from abuse and risk assessments were in place to keep people as safe as possible.

People received inclusive, caring and mindful support from staff who knew them well and whose main aim was to support people to have the kind of life they wanted. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible while maintaining their safety.

People received their medications in a safe and timely way from staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

There was a structured recruitment system in place to help the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff had undertaken a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This was followed by periodic refresher training and on-going support sessions.

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 support this practice.

People were fully involved in choosing the meals served at the home. They also took part in food shopping and helped to prepare meals.

Care files provided detailed up to date information about the areas people needed support in and reflected their preferences, which enabled staff to provide care and support that was tailored to their individual needs.

People had access to social activities that were based around their interests and hobbies. They told us they enjoyed the activities and outings they took part in.

The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns and there was a structured system in place for recording the detail and outcome of any concerns raised. This was also available in an easy to read version that used pictures to help people understand the process.

There was a system in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided. We also saw an audit system had been used to check if company policies had been followed and the premises were safe and well maintained.

The inspection took place on 16 March 2015 and was unannounced. Our last scheduled inspection at this service took place in January 2014 when no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

Canna is a care home without nursing. It provides care for up to four people with learning disabilities, or autistic spectrum disorders. The home is situated close to Rotherham town centre.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 spoke with staff who had a clear understanding of safeguarding adults and what action they would take if they suspected abuse. One care worker said, “If I suspected abuse I would act straight away.”

Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people were safe. The support plans we looked at included risk assessments which identified any risk associated with

people’s care. We saw risk assessments had been devised to help minimise and monitor the risk.

We spoke with staff and people who used the service and we found there were enough staff with the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to have their assessed needs, preferences and choices met by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had some knowledge of this and said they would speak to the registered manager for further advice.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to maintain a balanced diet. Meals were appropriately spaced throughout the day with snacks in-between. Meals were flexible to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support. We looked at people’s records and found they had received support from healthcare professionals when required.

People who used the service were supported to maintain friendships. Support plans contained information about their circle of friends and who was important to them. We saw that people had their own interests and hobbies and took part in several activities and events on a weekly basis.

We saw staff were aware of people’s needs and the best ways to support them, whilst maintaining their independence.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual support plan. The support plans were person centred and some contained pictures to assist the person to understand their plan. Support plans included healthcare, communication, personal hygiene, mobility and activities.

The service had a complaints procedure and people knew how to raise concerns. The procedure was also available in an ‘easy read’ version.

Staff we spoke with felt the service was well led and the registered manager was approachable and listened to them. Staff confirmed they knew their role within the organisation and the role of others. They knew what was expected of them and took accountability at their level.

Canna is part of the House of Light trust and there are three small homes within the local area. We found that there was effective communication between the three homes and the people who used the service enjoyed meeting with other people.

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. We spoke with people who used the service and they explained how their needs were met and the choices they were given. One person said, “I am always asked what I would like to do and staff respect my decision.”

Peoples' needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We spoke with people who used the service and they told us staff sat with them and explained their care plan to them.

People’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment and when people were moved between different services. The provider ensured that appropriate information was passed on in a confidential manner.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to obtaining, recording and administering medicines.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate records were maintained.

We found that people who used the service gave consent to their care and treatment. The appropriate procedure was followed where people were not able to give consent. We spoke with people who used the service and they told us that staff respected their decisions.

We saw people who used the service had an individual care plan. This was based on their needs. One person said, “I am involved in my care plan and make my own choices.”

We saw people were involved in planning, preparing and shopping for food. Safe practices were in place when dealing with food. People who used the service were encouraged to choose healthy options. One person said, “The meals are lovely and I help to cook them.”

The home was clean and systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. One person said, “We have a cleaning rota and we all help out.”

We found there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were knowledgeable about their role and felt that the training they attended was good. One member of staff said, “Training is always available and it is of good quality.”

People knew how to complain if they needed to. The complaints procedure was available. People who used the service told us that any concerns are discussed and resolved. One person said, “I would discuss any problems with the staff and they would sort it out.”

People told us they had confidence in the staff and were “Well looked after”.

People told us that staff explained all procedures and treatment to them and respected their decisions about care. They said that their interactions with staff were positive and they were treated as individuals.

People we spoke with understood about safeguarding of adults and told us that they felt safe within the service. People said they were aware of their rights and choices and were confident in the systems set up by the service to enable them to voice any concerns.