Care Management Group - 361 The Ridge provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to 12 people with learning disabilities. On the day of the inspection there were 11 people living at the service.

This inspection took place on 26 and 28 October 2016 and was unannounced. The previous inspection took place on in August 2014. The service met all the regulations we looked at.

The service had a registered manager at the time of our inspection but had resigned and was due to leave the service on 28 October 2016. 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.

The provider had put plans in place for a senior manager and two experienced registered managers from services of the same provider in the local area to oversee the operations at the service, until such a time a registered manager was appointed. The service was being managed this way at the time of this inspection. We are keeping the situation under review to ensure the service has a registered manager as soon as possible.

People told us they felt safe at the service. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse. The service carried out risk assessments, audits and checks regarding the safety of people and security of the premises regularly. Staff had risk management plans about how to support people to be as much independent as possible while keeping them safe. The provider recruited staff safely and ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.

People received their medicines safely. Staff used effectively medicines management systems in place to account for all the medicines each person had been given and how much was left in stock.

People had access to health care professionals when necessary. Staff responded to any changes in people’s health as appropriate and in a timely manner.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and knew people well. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity and confidentiality.

Staff had developed positive relationships with people and their relatives. People were supported to participate in social activities including community based outings. People had sufficient food and drink and received appropriate support with their dietary needs.

Staff understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when supporting people. Staff knew their role in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and how to support people without depriving them of their liberty unlawfully.

Staff asked people’s consent about care and treatment and supported them to make decisions were appropriate. People told us staff listened to them and respected their choices and decisions.

People, their relatives and staff were positive about the management of the service. The service asked people about the quality of their care and felt the registered manager acted on their views.

Staff received the support and training required to undertake their role. Staff had the knowledge and skills necessary to support people appropriately.

Staff assessed people’s needs and care plans had sufficient information on how people wanted to be supported. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of people’s care. People received care that met their individual needs and preferences.

People, their relatives and staff knew the management team and found them to be approachable and easily available. The provider and manager checked the quality and safety of the service people received and made changes when necessary.

People at the home had complex needs and were not all able to tell us about their experiences at the home. In order to get a better understanding we observed care practices, looked at records and spoke with staff. During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, three members of staff and two people who used the service.

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. This was a responsive inspection to look at the improvements made following our previous inspection in May 2014 where we found that people were not always cared for in a clean and hygienic environment. Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We found that action had been taken to improve the standard of hygiene and infection control in the service. Communal areas, toilets and bathrooms were visibly clean and free from unpleasant odours. There were clear systems in place to make sure that the standard of cleanliness was maintained. Staff had the equipment they needed to keep the risks of cross infection to a minimum.

People at the home had complex needs and were not all able to tell us about their experiences at the home. In order to get a better understanding we observed care practices, looked at records and spoke with staff. During the inspection we spoke with the area manager, manager and four members of staff and three people who used the service.

Our inspection team was made up of two inspectors. We answered our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that some areas of the home, such as a shower area were not maintained to an appropriate standard which meant there was an infection control risk. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

There were a sufficient number of staff on duty to ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment. The staff we spoke with said that they felt there were enough staff on duty to carry out their roles.

We found that there were suitable records relating to people who used the service which were up to date and clearly written. Records were available to the staff that needed to see them and were stored appropriately.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well. Staff had received the training they needed to meet the needs of the people receiving care. Staff had opportunities to discuss any issues with colleagues or in private with a manager. One staff member said "There is good staff support" and another commented "I get regular supervision and appraisals".

Is the service caring?

People were supported by committed and caring staff. We observed that people appeared comfortable in the home and familiar with the staff that worked there. We saw that staff members spoke directly with people and supported them at an appropriate pace. There were regular resident meetings which supported people to get involved in the service. One person told us "I love it, I'm with my friends” and “Staff are nice".

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs were continually assessed. Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests, goals and diverse needs had been recorded and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People had regular review meetings with keyworkers to make sure that changes in needs were identified and action taken.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of their roles in the service and said that they were supported by management. There were quality assurance processes in place to maintain standards in the service. We saw that staff and people who used the service were given opportunities to express their views.

We spoke with four people who used the service during the visit. However, we also used other methods to understand people’s experience due to their complex needs. One person was in hospital at the time of the visit. We spoke with three members of staff, the manager and the regional director. The registered manager named on this report had recently stopped working at the home. We also spoke with an external health care professional.

We found that staff demonstrated knowledge of the people living in the home and observed kind interaction between staff and the people they were supporting. One person liked helping at meal times. Another indicated that they enjoyed drawing. However, for two people we saw very little interaction during the day. We found that activity plans were out of date and did not reflect each person’s current needs and abilities.

Staff demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding processes and we found work underway to review policies and improve staff training.

Staffing levels were lower than considered optimum for the dependence and number of people in the home.

The home was not completing the regular internal audits required by the provider. The provider audits were not monitored and followed up to ensure that the quality of the service was maintained. We found that record keeping was not up to date in many areas.

People we spoke with said that the home was comfortable and that the care staff looked after them well. One person said that they were “Really happy living at the home and went to college as well as spending time in their home." Another said they were "Happy and loved living there." One person showed us their room which was personalised with photographs and personal items important to them.

We found that people were involved in decisions about their life as far as was possible. We also saw that people were involved in the decisions about how the home was run and the décor of their rooms. Care plans and risk assessments were in place and reflected people's needs and aspirations. The home was clean and comfortable and the food provided was varied and nutritious.

We saw that quality assurance systems were in place and were audited regularly to ensure that the service was run in the best interests of the people who used the service.