Church View is a care home which is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to five people with a learning disability or are on the autistic spectrum. At this inspection there were five people living at the home. They all had a range of verbal communication difficulties. We used a variety of methods to communicate with them including simple signing to support our speech and observations.

The building is a period building and has two floors. On the ground floor there are communal spaces such as lounges, a kitchen and a dining room. At this inspection everyone had their own individual bedroom. There was a staff sleep in room on the first floor.

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 remained safe at the home. There were adequate numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs including spending time socialising with them. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People were encouraged to work towards independence whilst there was understanding about their vulnerability. People received their medicines safely and were encouraged to self-administer if it was considered safe. People were protected from abuse because staff understood how to keep them safe and were confident any concerns raised would be responded to.

The home continued to ensure people received effective care. People had choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Healthy eating was promoted and meal times were treated as a social opportunity. Staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. People and their relatives told us their healthcare needs were met and we saw a range of healthcare professionals were involved.

The home continued to provide a caring service to people. People and relatives told us, and we observed that staff were kind and patient. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and their religious needs were valued. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. Staff found ways to ensure people were making informed choices at their level of understanding.

The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. Each person had a visual timetable providing a range of opportunities for them. This considered people’s hobbies, needs and interests. There had been no complaints since the last inspection. People and relatives knew how to complain and told us there would be a positive response if they did.

The service continued to be well led. People showed us, and relatives told us, the registered manager, who was the provider, was good and had a hands on approach to running the service. The registered manager continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements in accordance with people’s changing needs. There were strong links with the local community to provide wider opportunities for people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We inspected this service on 24 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced

Church View is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to five people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection five people were using the service.

Church View is a period property in the village of Odcombe. Two homes; Church View and Wisteria Cottage are run by the provider Village Homes, and share the same registered manager and staff team. The inspection of Church View was therefore carried out in conjunction with the inspection of Wisteria Cottage. As Church View holds a separate registration there is a separate report for the service. The provider is also the Registered Manager.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was a positive atmosphere within the home; people were seen to be at the heart of the service. People and their relatives were enabled to be involved in the care which was seen to be person centred and individualised. Everyone we spoke to, including staff members, were happy to be part of the service. Staff told us they were proud to work at the home and really enjoyed supporting the people who lived there. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. The staff were highly committed and provided people with positive care experiences. They ensured people’s care preferences were met and gave people opportunities to try new experiences.

People we spoke to told us they were well cared for and happy. One person told us.” It is nice living here, we all do things together.” People said they felt safe at the home and liked the staff who supported them. People were seen to be leading a full and enjoyable life.

Staff were seen to work and communicate well together. The home shared the same staff team and policies and procedures with the other home owned by the provider. One member of staff informed us. “I don’t mind which house I work in as the people are all lovely”.

People’s safety risks were identified, managed and reviewed and the staff understood how to keep people safe. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs. Improvement to care provision was made which showed the provider and staff were committed to delivering a high quality service.

Each person had individual risk assessment plans that were reviewed with the person on a monthly basis.

Safe systems were in place to protect people from the risks associated with medicines. Medicines were managed in accordance with best practice. Medicines were stored administered and recorded safely. Health professionals were routinely involved in supporting people with their health and wellbeing.

Care records were well written, detailed, with formats that supported people’s communication needs. They accurately reflected people’s care and support needs. Were possible people were fully involved in their care planning. Care plans included information about people’s likes, interests and background and provided staff with sufficient information to enable them to provide care effectively. People signed their care plans to demonstrate they had been involved in reviewing them or agreed to changes made.

Staff received regular supervisions and training, which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs effectively. Diabetes training was offered to ensure staff understood a person’s safety and the risks associated with the condition

Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and support. Staff were aware of the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) if people were unable to consent. The provider informed us DoLs application had been applied for all.

Staff supported and encouraged people to access the community and participate in activities which were important to them. People had similar interests, likes and dislikes, one person told us.” We all like living with each other and have fun”.

People living at the home had built up friendships with each other and with the people from the other home. People talked with excitement about their joint holiday and trips out. People were seen to be kind and caring towards each other.

A flexible approach to mealtimes was used to ensure people could access suitable amounts of food and drink that met their individual preferences. People were given opportunities to enjoy meals out in the local community.

We inspected Church View care home in conjunction with Wisteria Cottage care home. We found that Church View shared a staff team with Wisteria Cottage.

We spoke with four people who were living in the home, about their experiences of care in Church View. One person told us, “The staff here are nice.” We spoke with two relatives of people who lived in the home. A relative told us, “The care has been excellent, they have been looked after really well.”

We saw that people were involved in a number of activities throughout the week, these included work placements and college attendance. We found that people were involved in developing their own care plans, and were encouraged to develop independent living skills. A person told us, “I do my own washing but have help with my ironing.”

We found that people had access to a wide and varied range of activities. These included work placements and college attendance. People also had access to a variety of social opportunities.

We found that people had access to other health and care professionals when required. We also found that people were protected from harm as the home had appropriate safeguarding procedures in place. A person told us, “I feel safe here.”

We saw that people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

We inspected Church View and Wisteria Cottage together. Both homes were run by the same provider and were located in the same village. The home’s worked closely together in many areas, which included college attendance and organised holidays. Staff worked in both of the homes and the paperwork and systems were identical in each home.

People that lived in the home had varied communication abilities. Two people who were able to communicate verbally told us of their experiences and the care they received. We also spoke with two people’s relatives.

We observed the care that people received and their interactions with staff. On the day of inspection, five people were accommodated at the home.

People had access to a range of activities both within the home and externally, which included studying at college and work placements. These activities were arranged between the staff and people who lived at the home. People were supported to develop independent living skills and personal care plans were individually tailored to meet their needs. Other health care professionals were involved in meeting people’s care needs when required.

People were protected from harm as there were appropriate safeguarding procedures. We saw that staff were supported by the provider through training and that staff were encouraged in their professional development.

The service had effective systems to monitor the quality of service provided.

We inspected Church View and Wisteria Cottage over two days. Both homes were run by the same provider in the same village. The homes worked closely together. Staff worked in both homes and the paperwork and systems were the same in each home.

On the first day we spoke with one member of staff that worked in both homes. We read two people’s care records in Church View and looked at the home’s quality monitoring systems. We were only able to speak with two of the five people that lived in Church View because they were going out to college. We spoke with the other three people and another member of staff on the second day of the inspection.

People told us they were happy living in the home. People told us that staff were kind and treated them with respect. One person said “I love living here, the staff are nice”. Another person said that staff always explained things to them in a way that they could understand.

People said that they met with their key worker regularly and were involved in decisions about their care. They said there were house meetings each month where they could bring up anything of concern and any changes to the home or services were discussed with them.

People told us they were involved in the content of their care plan, risk assessments and reviews. They said they had monthly meetings with their key worker where they discussed and reviewed every aspect of their care, their activities, their wishes and any concerns.

People felt that staff listened to them and acted on any issues they raised in meetings. They said that staff always advised and explained any health appointments and supported them to attend them.

People told us about the wide and varied range of activities they did. Examples given were college, work placements, local clubs for arts and crafts, singing, performing arts, cinema, pub outings and cooking lessons.

People told us they took it in turns to cook meals for everyone in the home. They said they helped with the household chores and shopping.