55 Beulah Road is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal support for up to six younger males. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection.

When we last visited the home on 13 May 2015 the service was meeting the regulations we looked at and was rated Good overall and in all five key questions.

At this inspection we found the service continued to be Good.

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

There were good arrangements in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and the provider had responded to allegations of abuse appropriately. In addition, the provider had processes in place to learn and improve when things went wrong. The provider managed people’s medicines safely.

Risks relating to people’s care and also the premises were reduced as the provider assessed and managed risks well. People received care in premises which were safe, clean and well maintained. The premises met people’s support needs and people had access to communal areas including a sensory room which they used to relax.

There were enough staff deployed to support people and the provider carried out recruitment checks on staff to check their suitability.

People received care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the provider applied for and followed authorisations to deprive people of their liberty as part of keeping them safe appropriately.

People’s needs and choices were assessed well and care and support was delivered effectively by staff. People and their relatives were involved in people’s care. People were supported to live healthier lives and were supported in relation to eating and drinking by staff.

People were supported by staff who received suitable support and training to understand their needs. The service worked well with other services in the organisation as well as with external organisations in providing care to people.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs. People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and care was provided in a compassionate, person-centred way.

Care provided to people was responsive to their needs and care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure information remained reliable for staff to follow. People were supported to participate in holidays and activities they enjoyed. People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.

The provider encouraged people to feedback on the service and had a suitable complaints procedure to investigate and respond to any complaints.

The service was well-led with a registered manager in post who had a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. People, relatives, staff and professionals spoke highly of the registered manager. Leadership was visible and capable at all levels.

The provider was effective in monitoring, assessing and improving the service with a range of audits in place to check the quality of service.

The registered manager encouraged open communication with people and staff and the provider celebrated success with staff and people through a variety of award ceremonies.

This inspection took place on 13 May 2015 and was unannounced.

55 Beulah Road is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal support for up to six younger adults. There were five people using the service at the time of our inspection.

We last inspected in December 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were robust arrangements in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and staff knew how to keep people safe from harm.

The provider had procedures in place to promote a safe environment, they carried out health and safety checks which included checks on hot water temperatures, and environmental risk assessments, any shortfalls were identified and addressed promptly.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes. Some people had some restrictions placed on their liberty to help ensure their safety. Staff had followed the procedures outlined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people’s rights were properly considered. DoLS provides a process to make sure that people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way, when it is in their best interests and there is no other way to look after them.

People found there were enough staff available and on duty to support them safely. People were supported to integrate within the local community and to avoid social isolation. People were supported to participate in numerous leisure activities they enjoyed which included cycling and going to the cinema.

Staff had a detailed knowledge of people's needs and were familiar with their means of communication; they knew how to provide the care and support they required. Staff knew people well enough to develop positive caring relationships with them.

People were supported with personalising their living space in ways that were meaningful to them.

Medicines were kept safely. The medicines procedures followed by the service were person centred, and medicines were stored in a locked cabinet securely attached to the wall in people's rooms. People were given their medicines as prescribed.

With people’s consent relatives opted to receive monthly reports on their family member’s progress. Relatives were made welcome and they were encouraged to visit people as often as they wished. Staff also supported people to visit their families according to the wishes of people and their relatives.

There were close working relationships with local health and social care professionals. Professionals visited the home or staff supported people to attend appointments according to people’s individual needs and preferences.

The staff team were highly motivated and continuously sought ways of improving the quality of life people experienced. The service was well run, benefiting from the stability offered by the leadership and direction given by an experienced and competent manager.

Management recognised the variety of communication styles that worked for people, so they tailored the approach to suit the needs of the individual.

At the time of our inspection there were six men living at the home and we met with all of them during the course of our visit.

We spoke with two people who gave positive comments about life at Beulah Road. People said that they were happy at the service and were involved in making decisions about their daily lives. They told us they enjoyed various activities and regular holidays. One person said “the staff take you out a lot”.

People told us that they felt safe and could tell staff if they were unhappy about something.

Due to their needs, other people we met were unable to share direct views about their care experiences. During our visit people were relaxed and showed signs of well being when interacting with both the staff and other people using the service.

We found that the staff understood people's care needs and knew how to protect them from risk and harm. Staff told us they had ongoing training and supervision and were supported by management to do their job.

The provider had effective systems for assessing and monitoring the service they provided.

We were able to speak with two of the six people living at 55 Beulah Road. One person told us they were really pleased with their refurbished flat. The second person said there was “loads of staff” and they did lots of activities including cycling and going to the cinema and the pub. Due to their needs, the other people that we met during our visit were unable to share their direct views about the standards of care. 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. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy and four members of staff during the course of our two visits.

People were offered choices and had personalised care plans that were regularly reviewed to meet their needs. Where people did not have mental capacity to consent, care was provided in their best interests. Staff we spoke with had a detailed knowledge of people's needs and knew how to provide care and support for them.

Throughout our visit, people were comfortable and relaxed in the company of the staff supporting them. The staff team had a variety of skills and experience and had undertaken relevant qualifications to care for people. One person using the service said the staff were “easy to talk to.”

There were robust arrangements in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. One person using the service told us “I feel safe here.” Staff we spoke with knew how to keep people safe from harm.

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

There were safe and effective recruitment and selection processes in place. This helped ensure that people were protected from the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff. One staff member described the service as “professional with a family atmosphere.”

The provider regularly monitored the care, facilities and support for people using the service. Where issues were identified, action was taken where necessary.