Chasefield House is a residential care home without nursing and provides care and support for up to 11 people with learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection there were 8 people resident in the home.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

We looked at systems in place to manage medicines and found that they were safe. Medicines were stored and administered safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to external health care professionals when required.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Support provided to people met their needs. Care plans provided information about what was important to people and how to support them. People were involved in activities of their choice.

Risks to people were assessed and where required a risk management plan was in place to support people manage an identified risk and keep the person safe.

We looked at staff recruitment files and found the provider had a safe and effective system in place for employing new staff. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and this ensured people were supported safely. Staff completed training to ensure they were suitably skilled to perform their role. Staff were supported through a supervision programme

Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff. Staff demonstrated and in-depth understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for.

There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. Comments from people and compliments received by the provider confirmed that people were happy with the service and the support received.

This was an unannounced inspection, carried out over one day on 20 March 2015.

At our previous inspection in July 2013, the provider was meeting the requirements of the law.

Chasefield House provides accommodation for adults with a learning disability. At the time of our visit, nine people were living there.

There was a registered manager for the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People were supported by staff who were aware of how to keep them safe from harm and abuse. Staff knew what to do if they were concerned about the safety or welfare of a person at the home. Staff also said they felt confident if they ever had to report any concerns to the registered manager.

There was a system to make sure sure staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people living at the home. This helped ensure there were enough qualified and suitably competent staff.

There were systems in place that helped to ensure safe and suitable new staff were recruited to ensure people received safe care that met their needs.

Staff knew how to follow the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision.

The registered manager had made seven completed applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for people. The applications were to aim to make sure that people were looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The safeguards should ensure that the people concerned are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way. This must only be done when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way.

People’s range of care needs were identified and the care they required was planned and delivered to them in a consistent way. This ensured people received effective support and their individual needs were met.

People were supported to eat and drink enough so that their nutrition and hydration needs were properly met.

Staff had attended a variety of training to enable them to provide people with the care and support they required.

People’s complaints were properly investigated by following the provider’s procedure. People knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern if they were unhappy about the service.

The quality of the service and the care people received was properly checked and monitored to ensure it was of a suitable standard. Improvements to the service were made where they were identified.

It was evident from observations we carried out that people felt relaxed and at home. We observed, and it was confirmed by professionals who visited the home, that people were treated with warmth and respect. People had person centred care plans which recorded their care needs and preferences and included their health needs.

People were supported to access the community and staff ensured people had the opportunity to take part in activities they enjoyed. Professionals we spoke with were positive about how the home supported people and liaised with other services.

The home was clean and smelt fresh throughout. The premises were in need of maintenance but the staff had made efforts to make the building as homely as possible.

Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out before new members of staff were employed and the home had an effective system to monitor the quality of the service. The home was proactive in supporting people to complain and dealt with complaints effectively.

People who lived at the home were not able to discuss their experience of living in the home due to the level of their disability. We asked people if they liked the home and they said it was "nice", and that the staff were "nice".

We spent time with people in the communal areas of the home and observed how the staff team interacted with people. People were relaxed and comfortable with all the staff and we observed a warm and affectionate relationship between people who lived at the home and the staff.

Staff and people living at the home knew each other well. Staff told us how people who did not speak communicated their preferences. Throughout our visit it was apparent that the staff team worked hard to respect people’s rights preferences.

We saw people engaged in activities and that they were offered regular access to the community.

The building itself was in poor condition. Window frames were rotten and all the paintwork in communal areas was chipped. There were some holes in the walls around the woodwork and wallpaper was peeling in some communal areas. The dining room was dark and gloomy, staff had done their best to brighten it up with tablecloths. The kitchen was in need of replacement.

One bathroom had mouldy sealant and the floor covering was compromised. There was a hole in the wall where the radiator was attached.

The lounge had recently been decorated and was light and pleasant and there was new carpet on the stairs and hall. The registered manager told us that the home needed to be refurbished and that they did their best to ensure that people’s rooms were nicely decorated. We saw a plan of work they wanted to carry out this year.

The registered manager told us they had been promised that all the windows would be replaced, the kitchen refurbished and the bathroom turned into a wet room.