The inspection took place on 10 and 11 October and was unannounced on the first day. We last inspected the service 5 January 2016 when it was found to be meeting with the regulations we assessed.

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.

Community Solutions is registered to provide accommodation for up to 14 people who require personal care. People live in shared houses and individual houses. All bedrooms have en-suite bathrooms. The service specialises in supporting younger adults with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. The service is based in the centre of Thorne, which is a busy town with plenty of local facilities such as shops, cafes, restaurants, parks and leisure facilities.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time 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.

The registered provider was working within 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.

We spoke to people with limited verbal communication, who showed us through their body language and positive interaction with staff, that they were very happy and safe living there. People were busy, during both the days of our visit, taking part in various chosen activities, such as voluntary work, dancing class, food shopping and walks in the local area.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to safeguard people from abuse and felt confident that people were safe. The support plans we looked at contained risk assessments which considered the safety of people whilst balancing them having an enjoyable and safe life. Risks were monitored and did not place undue restrictions on people.

Records showed that the registered provider's recruitment procedures were robust and systems were in place to check that support workers were of good character and were suitable to care for people who used the service, prior to employment.

Rotas and training records showed us that there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to support people in line with their needs. People received one to one support when this was needed and staff were skilled in providing person centred support.

There were systems in place to ensure people's medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained and competency assessed to administer medicines.

We saw staff enabled people who used the service to follow their preferred interests and be as independent and active as possible. Procedures were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infections.

Consent to care was sought in line with legislation.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and felt they had the necessary skills to do their job. Through our observations we saw staff knew people well and understood their needs. Healthcare professionals were accessed as required.

Care records reflected people's needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care. These provided staff with detailed guidance about how to support people and keep them as safe as possible. Support plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and updated regularly to ensure they were meeting each person's needs. People had c

The inspection took place on 5 January 2016 and was unannounced. Our last inspection of this service took place in December 2013 when no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

Community Solutions is registered to provide accommodation for up to 13 people who require personal care. People live in shared houses and, flats, and individual houses. All bedrooms have en-suite bathrooms. The service specialises in supporting younger adults with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. The service is based in the centre of Thorne, within walking distance of local facilities including, shops, cafes, restaurants, parks and leisure facilities.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time 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.

Some people we spoke with had limited verbal communication. However, everyone very clearly indicated they felt safe and were happy living in the service, liked the staff and did the activities they liked to do.

Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of safeguarding people and they were confident their managers and the rest of their team would act appropriately to safeguard people from abuse.

The support plans we looked at included risk assessments, which identified any risks associated with people’s care, and had been devised to help minimise and monitor the risks without placing undue restrictions on people. People’s medicines were well managed.

Everywhere was very clean and well maintained, and there were effective health and safety audits in place.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and to meet people’s individual needs, and the staff told us they received good training and support. Thorough recruitment checks were undertaken before staff started work in the service.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected. MCA assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been made where there were doubts about a person’s capacity to make a specific decision. DoLS applications had been made appropriately to the local authority.

There was good guidance for staff regarding how people expressed pain or discomfort, so they could respond appropriately and seek input from health care professionals, if necessary. People had access to a good range of health care services and staff actively advocated for people if they felt health care services were not as responsive as they should be.

People were supported to have a good, well balanced diet and people’s individual needs and choices were catered for. They also had good access to a range of health care services, and received good health care support.

Staff retention was good, and staff knew people well and had built good relationships. There was also a good mix of staff.

Staff spoke to people in a caring and positive way, treated people with respect and were mindful of their rights and dignity. There was a nice, relaxed atmosphere and people were relaxed and smiling in the presence of the support staff.

There were very good care and support plans and information for staff about people’s likes and dislikes and we saw that staff were very good at monitoring people’s reactions and responses and responding to people in positive way. People were involved in choices about all aspects of their lives.

We found that staff respected people’s spiritual and cultural needs. Staff were knowledgeable about this aspect of people’s needs and this information was also clearly reflected in people’s care and support plans. The care plans themselves were detailed and thoughtful, and included pictures an

We spoke with two people who used the service. The people we spoke with said they were happy and liked living at 49 King Street. One person said it was nice, another said they were very happy.

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

There was an effective complaints system available. One person told us they would speak to staff if they were not happy.

Due to the complex needs of the people who used the service we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. We spoke to one person who used the service, watched staff providing support and looked at records. These included care plans and minutes of meetings. We spoke with four relatives of people who used the service by telephone.

People who used the service and their relatives were happy with the care and support provided and felt the home was a safe place to live. We saw that people were offered choice and staff respected their privacy and dignity while encouraging them to be as independent as possible. When we asked one person if they liked living in the home they said, “It’s nice here.”

Later they told us, “Staff are brilliant here.”

The four relatives we spoke with all gave very positive feedback about the service. One said, “The staff are genuinely interested in the welfare of the people they are caring for.” Another said,” The staff are fantastic.”

There was evidence that people took part in very wide range of activities in the community, as well as being involved in everyday tasks like shopping, cleaning and preparing meals.