This inspection took place on the 30 October 2017 and was unannounced.

95 Parchmore Road is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal support for up to five adults with a learning disability. There were five men using the service at the time of our inspection.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The registered provider demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.

People continued to feel safe and well cared for at the service. Risks relating to people's care and support had been assessed and minimised as far as possible. Detailed behaviour plans were in place for people whose actions were assessed as being a risk to themselves and others. Staff completed relevant training on how to support people positively with their behaviours. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about people’s care and welfare and how to protect them from abuse.

There were enough staff to support people and the provider followed safe recruitment practice to employ suitable staff. People received effective care and support with their needs because staff received ongoing training to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.

People continued to live in a home that was kept clean and well maintained. Regular checks were carried out on the environment and equipment to ensure it was safe and fit for use.

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 supported this practice. People were encouraged to be independent and staff respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff knew people well and how they preferred to be supported. Care plans provided comprehensive information about people's care needs, their likes, dislikes and preferences. People were supported to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff understood the different ways people communicated and used communications tools to support their involvement in care planning.

People enjoyed varied social and leisure opportunities that interested them. Staff worked flexibly to support people with their preferred interests, activities and hobbies. The service promoted and supported people's contact with their families and friends. People and relatives were encouraged to share their views and opinions of the service. Arrangements to deal with complaints were in place should they arise.

People were supported to keep healthy and their nutritional needs and preferences were met. Any changes to their health or wellbeing or accidents and incidents were responded to quickly. Referrals were made to other professionals as necessary to help keep people safe and well. People received their medicines safely and when they needed them.

There was an established registered manager who continued to provide effective leadership. The management of the home was open and transparent. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and followed the provider’s values when supporting people.

The provider used effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service and had ongoing plans for improving the service people received. Where improvements were needed or lessons learnt, action was taken. Feedback from people who used the service, relatives, and staff was used to improve their experience.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

This inspection took place on 11 September 2015 and was unannounced. 95 Parchmore Road is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal support for up to five adults with learning disabilities. There were five adults using the service when we visited, and they were all male. We last inspected 95 Parchmore Road in November 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

There was 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was a relaxed and warm atmosphere within the home. Care records were focused on putting people first, and care arrangements placed people in control. Staff responded quickly when people had a change in their needs.

People’s preferences were respected. Their strengths, life histories, disabilities and abilities were taken into account, communicated and recorded. Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that helped to promote people's safety and welfare. There were risk assessments in place for each person which were personalised and set out what staff had to do to keep people safe. Only suitably vetted staff were employed in the home. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Staff understood and had a good working knowledge of the key requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and support. Some people were unable to make certain decisions about their care. In these circumstances the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed. Staff put this into practice effectively to help ensure people had their legal rights respected.

Staff were highly motivated and flexible which ensured people’s plans were realised so that they had meaningful and enjoyable lives. Staff had the training they needed to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge and could care for and support people. Equality and diversity was promoted in the service, staff were trained to understand their role in supporting people with developing relationships. People were cared for by kind and compassionate staff who were familiar with individual’s needs and knew how to meet these. Staff showed concern for people’s wellbeing in a meaningful way.

The service had good staff retention levels which brought stability and security to people. A family member told us they had full confidence in the staff team, they were compassionate and patient. Relatives felt included and were kept fully informed of any issues that arose. Staff described the manager as open, supportive and approachable. Staff were enthusiastic and spoke positively about their roles. The registered manager and the provider assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure quality standards were met and maintained. People and staff were encouraged to be involved in service development and this helped drive continuous improvements. Continual improvements were made demonstrating the registered manager and provider were committed to delivering high quality care.

Since our last inspection, a new registered manager had been appointed.

Two people we met told us they were happy living at the home and liked the staff. Due to their needs, other people that we met during our visit were unable to share their direct views about the standards of care they received. We therefore used observations and looked at care records to help us understand their experiences. We also looked at various records around the way the home was being run and toured the premises. We spoke with the new registered manager and four members of staff during the course of our visit. We spoke with one person’s relative and a social care professional following our inspection.

People were supported by a stable staff team who had worked at the service for a number of years. Throughout our visit, people looked comfortable and relaxed in the company of the staff who supported them. It was clear from the way staff interacted with people who used the service that they understood their preferred methods of communication.

People using the service had personalised support plans, which were current and outlined how they wanted their care and support to be provided. This meant staff had the information they needed to meet people’s individual needs. Where people did not have mental capacity to consent, care was provided in their best interests.

We found the provider worked in co-operation with other professionals to support people with their health and welfare needs. A social care professional told us the home worked well with them. They said the service was “very good, no problems.”

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. There was an on-going refurbishment plan to improve a number of areas in the home.

People received effective care and support because the service had sufficient numbers of staff to support people.

There was a complaints process which showed that people who used the service and their families were supported to raise any concerns.

Most of the people living at Parchmore Road were not able to clearly and consistently tell us about their experience of the care and treatment provided by Care Management Group. However it was apparent that staff had a very good understanding of people’s needs, preferences and means of communication. We saw that people were comfortable with the staff who treated them with respect and that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The files we sampled showed that care and treatment was provided in a safe and appropriate way and the provider sought the input of family members and other professionals in decisions about people’s care. We saw potentially challenging behaviour being managed appropriately and with gentleness and that people were enabled to get out and about within the local community and pursue their interests. The files indicated that there were few incidents and that people were involved as much as possible with the running of the house.

The reader should note that ‘CMG’ represents Care Management Group who are the owning company and that ‘PCP’ stands for person centred plan. This is a plan of care that is developed with a person using the service or their representative.

At the time of our inspection there were five men living at 95 Parchmore Road and we met with all of them during the course of our visit.

Two people talked to us about their day to day lives and their experiences of the home. Due to their needs, some people that we met during our visit were unable to share their views about the standards of care. Two people spoke with us about their experience of the home and gave complimentary feedback. They told us they are treated well, make decisions about the care they receive, and are provided with a range of personalised and varied activities. Three people told us that they regularly go out and had gone on holidays abroad with their keyworker staff. One person said, “I went on an aeroplane and next year I want to go to Canada to see my family.”

Due to their needs, some people were unable to share direct views about their experiences at the home. During our visit people were relaxed and showed signs of well being when interacting with both the staff and other people using the service. Staff were alert to changes in people’s mood, behaviour and general wellbeing and knew how they should respond to individual needs.

People told us that they felt safe and could tell staff if they were unhappy about something. They said they would speak to their keyworker or the manager if they wanted to complain. People told us that the manager and staff listen to them and respect their views.

The manager and staff team have developed good relationships with those who live at the home and understand their needs, wishes and aspirations to enable them to live a fulfilling life. Staff confirmed they received appropriate training and felt well supported by management staff. They felt there was good teamwork and lots of useful training.

Please refer to each outcome below and within the main report for more detailed comments about specific aspects of the service.

We would like to thank all those who took part in this review for their time, assistance and hospitality.