The inspection took place on 16 May 2017.

59 Chestnut Street is a student residence for Arden College. The home provides accommodation for up to three people between the ages of 16 and 25 with learning disabilities. This home comprises of individual bedrooms, bathrooms, lounge, dining room, kitchen and a garden.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People were protected from the risk of abuse or harm because staff knew people well and were vigilant in monitoring risk. Risk assessments had been completed to monitor people's health and to keep them safe when inside the home or when out in the community.

The provider had a robust recruitment process to ensure that staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Sufficient numbers of staff were on duty to meet the needs of people in the service and enable them to access the community.

Medicines were administered and stored safely at the home by trained staff and in accordance with best practice guidance for care homes.

Staff completed training courses in subjects relevant to support the needs of the people in the home. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and how they liked to be supported.

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. The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

People were supported to eat and drink and maintain a healthy diet, in accordance with their wishes and preferences.

People had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

People's needs had been assessed and identified the support they required.

People were supported to be independent.

Person centred plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported, as well as action plans detailing people's hope and aspirations, and their progress in achieving them. People were able to make decisions relating to day to day living.

The service coordinated well with other services to help ensure a smooth transition for people in or out of the service.

Staff were supported through supervision and regular staff meetings.

The home manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided at Chestnut Street. These included regular audits of the service, meetings with people in the service and questionnaire to relatives to seek their views about the quality of care. Feedback demonstrated that people and their relatives were happy and satisfied with the level of care which was being delivered.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We visited the home on 8th October 2013 and looked at outcomes 2, 4, 9, 12, 16 and 17. We found the service was compliant with theses outcomes. We spoke to one person at the home and observed the other in the college. We also spoke with the head of care, home manager, staff at the home and college supporting people.

People did not just use words to communicate their needs, they used some signing as well as the home introducing people to a pictorial system called boardmaker. We observed staff responding respectfully and sensitively to their nonverbal communication and actions. Staff were supported in their approach to care through access to detailed, person centred care, support plans and regular meetings. During the visit the staff demonstrated a person centred approach in the way they provided care to people.

Assessment of people's need was thorough and person centred, with focus on their individual circumstances and immediate to longer-term needs. Care and support plans placed an emphasis on people's right to be self-determining in how they lived their lives and take risks.

Peoples' capacity to make their wishes known when they did not use words was recorded and appropriate communication methods used.

The right of people to take informed risks had been acknowledged and risk assessments ensured a balance of safety and effectiveness. People were cared for by staff that were recruited properly and well trained.

One person told us told us they enjoyed living here very much and that " this place is outstanding, the staff are very helpful." We observed that the home had systems in place to support people to be involved in how the service was run. The home used symbols, pictures and signing to support people to be actively involved in their care and in giving them information in an appropriate format to make choices.

One person was unable to communicate verbally; we observed staff responding respectfully and sensitively to their non verbal communication and actions. Staff were supported in their approach to care through access to detailed, person centred care records and regular meetings. Throughout the visit the staff and managers demonstrated a person centred approach in the way they provided care to people.

The home had a number of policies and procedures in place to assess and monitor quality including incident and accident reporting. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about what to do if they had any safeguarding concerns and told us they had received training as part of the mandatory foundations for growth learning package.

There was evidence that families were involved in reviews of the care of people living in the home and about how the service was delivered through family surveys, however a family member told us that that their involvement could be improved through better communication and regular meetings with staff at the home.

The inspection took place on 16 May 2017.

59 Chestnut Street is a student residence for Arden College. The home provides accommodation for up to three people between the ages of 16 and 25 with learning disabilities. This home comprises of individual bedrooms, bathrooms, lounge, dining room, kitchen and a garden.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People were protected from the risk of abuse or harm because staff knew people well and were vigilant in monitoring risk. Risk assessments had been completed to monitor people's health and to keep them safe when inside the home or when out in the community.

The provider had a robust recruitment process to ensure that staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Sufficient numbers of staff were on duty to meet the needs of people in the service and enable them to access the community.

Medicines were administered and stored safely at the home by trained staff and in accordance with best practice guidance for care homes.

Staff completed training courses in subjects relevant to support the needs of the people in the home. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and how they liked to be supported.

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. The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

People were supported to eat and drink and maintain a healthy diet, in accordance with their wishes and preferences.

People had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

People's needs had been assessed and identified the support they required.

People were supported to be independent.

Person centred plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported, as well as action plans detailing people's hope and aspirations, and their progress in achieving them. People were able to make decisions relating to day to day living.

The service coordinated well with other services to help ensure a smooth transition for people in or out of the service.

Staff were supported through supervision and regular staff meetings.

The home manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided at Chestnut Street. These included regular audits of the service, meetings with people in the service and questionnaire to relatives to seek their views about the quality of care. Feedback demonstrated that people and their relatives were happy and satisfied with the level of care which was being delivered.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.