We inspected Cherrycroft on the 11 September 2018.

Cherrycroft is a residential care home for up to ten people with learning disabilities and may have mental health issues. At the time of our inspection eight people were using the service. The service had spacious living areas and was set over two floors with a lift in place should this be needed. The service was set in a residential area with easy access to the local community and has a large garden. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy

The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were 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. People were supported to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment was well maintained and suitable for the needs of people.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.

This inspection took place on 14 March 2016.

Cherrycroft provides accommodation for up to ten people who have a learning disability and may have additional mental health issues. There were nine people living in the service on the day of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s assessed needs safely. Staff were well trained and supported. There were sufficient staff who had been recruited safely to ensure that they were fit to work with people.

People told us, or showed us through their body language and facial expressions, that they felt safe and comfortable living at Cherrycroft. Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from the risk of harm. They had been trained and had access to guidance and information to support them in maintaining good practice.

Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and the service had support plans and risk assessments in place to ensure people were cared for safely. People received their medication as prescribed and there were safe systems in place for receiving, administering and disposing of medicines.

The registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They had made appropriate applications to the relevant authorities to ensure that people’s rights were protected.

People were supported to have sufficient amounts of food and drink to meet their needs. People’s care needs had been assessed and catered for. The support plans provided staff with good information about how to meet people’s individual needs, understand their preferences and how to care for them safely. The service monitored people’s healthcare needs and sought advice and guidance from healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people respectfully. People participated in activities of their own choice that met their needs. Families were made to feel welcome and people were able to receive their visitors at a time of their choosing. Staff ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

There were good systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to deal with any complaints or concerns.

Some of the people who lived at Cherrycroft had complex needs but some were able to speak with us. We spoke with three of the 10 people who used the service on the day of our inspection. We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by observing how they spent their time and we noted how they interacted with other people who lived in the service and with staff. We also spoke with one relative, two staff members, one visiting healthcare professional, the manager and regional manager.

We looked at four people's care records. Other records viewed included staff recruitment and training records, staff rotas, health and safety checks, medication records, quality assurance audits and satisfaction questionnaires completed by the people who used the service, their relatives and staff.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service we were asked for our identification and asked to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The service was aware of new changes in the law with regard to DoLS. Where applications had 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.

People told us they felt safe living in the service and that they would speak with the staff if they had concerns. We saw the service had processes in place which ensured that staff had the skills and knowledge to support people safely.

The service was safe. We saw records which showed that the health and safety in the service was regularly checked and that staff records and other records relevant to the management of the service were accurate and fit for purpose.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they felt that they were provided with a service that met their needs. One person said: "It's fine here I am looked after." Additionally one relative said: “I am very happy with the service, its suits (my relative) well.”

Where people were deemed as not having capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment or to manage their affairs, we saw that the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information.

We found that there were enough trained, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Staff received the training they needed to provide care and support safely and were able to demonstrate that they understood the specific needs of the people who used the service and how those needs were to be met.

Is the service caring?

We saw that the staff interacted with people who lived in the service in a caring, and respectful manner. We saw that staff treated people with respect. One staff member told us: "I feel the people here are well supported, we all know them well." A visiting healthcare professional also told us: "The staff are very good and always give people choices. We can tell a lot from their non-verbal communication and I understand it."

Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people's care and support needs. This included recognising and supporting them as an individual. Where people required assistance, staff provided this in a timely manner and at a relaxed pace. This ensured people received care and support consistently and in ways that they preferred.

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

People's choices were taken in to account and listened to. People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them.

People's care records showed that where concerns about their wellbeing had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from health care professionals, including a speech and language therapist and a doctor.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance processes which were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good service at all times.

The service had a quality assurance system in place and records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly.