The inspection took place on 9 and 10 November 2016 and was unannounced.

Clacton Family Trust provides accommodation and care for people with a learning disability and physical disabilities within a care home and supported living flats. The care home consists of five bungalows on one site. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people using this part of the service. Clacton Family Trust also provides personal care to people living in supported living units. People who use this part of the service have their own tenancies and receive the majority of their support from staff employed by Clacton Family Trust. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people living in supported living units. These were predominantly located in a purpose built property and the remainder in other properties within the local area. There were a further two people receiving support in their own homes.

A registered manager was in post at the service. 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.

When we last visited the service in 2015, we found people did not receive consistently good care across the service. People and staff in the care home had a less positive experience than in the supported living service. At this inspection we found the service had made significant improvements and people were now received good quality care and support across the service.

There was a new registered manager in post. Improved systems had been introduced to monitor the quality of the service and address poor practice. The manager demonstrated strong leadership and was committed to continuing the process of improvement through introducing innovation and best practice.

There was an open culture at the service and staff morale had improved. People who used the service, their families and staff were encouraged to speak about their experience of care to the manager. Concerns and complaints were responded to and dealt with promptly and effectively.

People were protected from harm. Staff knew what to do if they were concerned people were not safe. Risk was well managed across the service. Where people were assessed to be at risk there were practical and effective measures in place to keep them safe. When implementing these measures, staff were encouraged to minimise any restrictions on people.

The registered manager ensured there were always sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe. Staff were recruited safely and managed efficiently to enable people’s needs to be met. Medicines were safely administered by appropriately trained staff.

Staff were skilled at meeting people’s needs. They had received effective training and the manager was proactive in ensuring staff had the necessary expertise, knowledge and attitude. Care plans were in place which provided staff with the necessary guidance to meet people’s needs and preferences.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. The management and staff understood their responsibility in this area and promoted people’s right to make choices about their care. Where people’s freedom was restricted the manager had made appropriate referrals for authorisation to the local authority.

People were supported to have a healthy diet. They were encouraged to be involved in choosing and preparing their meals and drinks. People were supported to maintain good physical and mental wellbeing. Staff worked well with health and

People using the service had complex needs which meant that many were unable to tell us their experiences. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by talking with some people, observing how others spent their time and noting how they interacted with other people living in the home and with staff. Some people spoke with us generally and said they were happy.

Relatives who completed surveys as part of the home’s quality monitoring process made positive comments about the home. One relative said “At present absolutely everything is very positive for which we...are very grateful”.

We saw that people smiled and were relaxed and comfortable with staff and others living in the home. We saw good-humoured and friendly exchanges between staff and people living in the home.

During our inspection we saw that people received good care and that staff treated them with respect.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs, likes, dislikes and preferences. They were also able to tell us about people’s individual ways of communicating.

During our visit we talked with people living in the home and they told us of their experiences. One person said they enjoyed going to college and going out shopping and another said they enjoyed cooking and that they made their own breakfast and lunch.

Someone told us they were playing the lead in a production of Mary Poppins and they were very excited about that; someone else said, "I'm happy" and "Liz [the manager] makes me laugh."

Another person who was staying for a week said that they wanted to stay for another week because they liked it at Clacton Family Trust.

Relatives who completed surveys as part of the home's own quality assurance process were positive and complimentary about the care provided, the staff and the general running of the home. One person said, "Some things have been put away and lost or hard to find when asked for. Apart from that minor point the Trust is an excellent place to live and we are all very happy with it." Other people said, "Finances are handled well”, "My [relative] is settled and very happy here, so I am very happy with [their] care", "Please be aware that I feel everyone at the Trust has been overwhelmingly kind and considerate" and "I think the staff are very willing to support the service users with respect."

The inspection took place on 28 and 30 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Clacton Family Trust provides accommodation and care for up to 37 people with a learning disability and physical disabilities within five bungalows. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people using this part of the service. Clacton Family Trust also provides personal care to people living in supported living units. People who use this part of the service have their own tenancies and receive their support from staff employed by Clacton Family Trust. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people in supported living, in a property with 15 flats and the remainder in properties within the local area. There were a further three people receiving support in their own homes.

A registered manager resigned from post in the week 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. Following our visit, the provider made arrangements to appoint a new registered manager.

There was a difference in the quality of care between the supported living service and the care home, which were run as two separate services. Whilst we found that people at the supported living service received a good service, the experience for people at the care home was not consistently good. Throughout this report we will aim to distinguish, where relevant, between the two different parts of the service.

There were measures in place to manage and minimise risk. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet to keep people safe. The service constantly reviewed the effectiveness of their staffing arrangements to ensure people’s needs were met.

There were systems in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely. The provider had a robust recruitment process in place to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.

Staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink that met their individual needs. People’s health needs were managed by staff with input from relevant health care professionals. People’s independence was promoted by staff and they were involved in decisions about their care.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect by staff who knew them well and their rights were upheld. Staff had the skills to support people to communicate their views and preferences, however they did not always make use of a wide variety of communication methods when communicating with people. Detailed assessments had been carried out and personalised care plans were in place which reflected individual needs and preferences, however people were not always supported to engage in meaningful activities. The provider had an effective complaints procedure and people had confidence that concerns would be investigated and addressed.

The provider was in the process of arranging for a new registered manager to be in post. The provider and deputy manager were committed to improving the service, however more time was needed to measure whether their proposed changes were positive and sustainable. The service was not able to demonstrate that the current systems in place to check the quality of the service were leading to improvements in care for people.