What life is like for people using this service:

People and their relatives told us they were happy with care provided. People were empowered to maintain their independence, make their own life choices and live busy, active lives. Most people living there were in paid or voluntary employment. Everyone we spoke with at Consort Close told us it was a nice place to live and people were happy there.

The service operated safe management of people’s medicines. People who were able to control their own medication were encouraged to do so. This promoted their independence.

People were cared for by staff they knew well. Most of the staff had worked for the provider for a long time. New staff received a thorough induction and were given time to get to know the people they were caring for. The provider operated safe recruitment, all staff had been subject to checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to ensure they were not known as unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.

The provider had a safeguarding team that were contactable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Staff were provided with contact details for this on their ID badges. Safeguarding was discussed at resident and staff meetings and there were signs around the home informing people how they could raise a concern.

Each person living at the service had an individual care file which was detailed and included how they wished to be cared for. There was clear person-centred information and documentation had been regularly reviewed and updated.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and had formed close bonds with the people using the service.

People were empowered to live full and active lives, they had jobs if they chose to, took part in a variety of activities and were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends.

The home was relaxed, welcoming and homely. There were photographs on all the walls of people who live there and the people that were important to them.

The service provided information in a way that people living with disability or sensory loss could understand. They used ‘communication in print’ for people who could not read.

Staff received a comprehensive induction when they commenced employment, did annual refresher training and completed extra training if they supported people with their medications. All staff told us the training was detailed and gave them the skills they needed to meet people’s needs.

There was a registered manager in post, they were supported by a residential manager and team leaders. The management team were supported by the providers safeguarding team, health and safety manager and multi-disciplinary team, including clinical specialists. There were regular multi-disciplinary team meetings.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 14 April 2016)

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.

About the service: Two, three and four Consort Close, Bollington is a care home which is part of the David Lewis Centre. The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 12 adults with a learning disability, autism or a physical disability. The service specialises in caring for people with epilepsy. Some people who live there are able to be independent and have jobs within the local community. 2 Consort Close is a one bedroomed separate property, 3 and 4 Consort Close, known as Bryce House, is a purpose built bungalow for 11 people. These domestic type properties are close to shops, public transport and other local amenities.

Why we inspected: This was a planned, unannounced inspection.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on the 2 March 2016.

Two, three and four Consort Close, Bollington is part of the David Lewis Centre’s ‘Community Programme’ and is registered to provide accommodation for 12 people who require support and care with their daily living. There are two separate adjacent properties which are located on a residential estate in Bollington, which is a village approximately three miles from Macclesfield town centre. There are two linked bungalows accommodating 11 people and an adjacent house where one person was living independently with only minimal support from staff members. These domestic type properties are close to shops, public transport and other local amenities within Bollington. Staff members are available twenty four hours a day. At the time of our visit there were 12 people living there.

Consort Close had a 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager, (their job title within the organisation was service manager), did not work in the home on a daily basis. Day to day management was provided by a residential manager who had responsibility for a total of four services operated by David Lewis and the team leaders who managed each shift.

We spoke to eight of the people living at Consort Close and asked them what they thought about the home and the staff members supporting them.

The service had a range of policies and procedures which helped staff refer to good practice and included guidance on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant that the staff members were aware of people's rights to make their own decisions. They were also aware of the need to protect people's rights if they had difficulty in making decisions for themselves.

We asked staff members about training and they confirmed that they received regular training throughout the year, they described this as their mandatory training and that it was up to date.

The care plans, which within the David Lewis Centre were called common care files were reviewed regularly so staff knew what changes, if any, had been made. The files each had a ‘one page profile’ which explained what was important to the individual and how best to support them. This helped to ensure that people’s needs continued to be met. These were due to be transferred on to the organisations new computerised system called ‘I Care’ in April 2016.

Staff members we spoke with were positive about how the home was being managed. Throughout the inspection we observed them interacting with each other in a professional manner. The staff members we spoke with were positive about the service and the quality of the support being provided.

The relationships we saw were warm, respectful, dignified and with plenty of smiles. Everyone in the service looked relaxed and comfortable with the staff.

We found that the provider and the home used a variety of methods in order to assess the quality of the service they were providing to people. These included regular audits on areas such as the care files, including risk assessments, medication, individual finances and staff training. The records were being maintained properly.

During our unannounced inspection on 25 February 2014 we spoke to the Registered Manager, the Residential Manager, a team leader, two members of staff and two people who used the service.

Staff we spoke to were clear on their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. One member of staff who had recently completed their training told us; “I found the training very thorough and informative. It prepared me really well for starting work.”

People we met were happy with the care and support they received. One person said; “Staff do a good job, I like living here.”

We looked around the two kitchens, the communal living rooms and the toilets and saw that all areas appeared clean and tidy.

We inspected a range of pieces of equipment including, kitchen appliances, stereos and computers and we found that they had all been portable appliance tested (PAT) within the last 12 months.

Staff told us that if they made a suggestion for improvement, it was implemented where possible. One example provided was changes made to a bathroom to increase privacy following a suggestion made by a staff member.

During our visit we spoke with one person living in the home. Following our visit we spoke with one person on the telephone. We also spoke with three members of staff.

We observed staff treating people in a friendly and respectful way. People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and said staff talk with them about their care and explain things to them. They said they had no complaints but knew who to speak to if they were unhappy. Comments included, “I can talk to any of the staff if I am unhappy” and “They listen; I know they would sort things out if I needed”.

We found all areas of the home to be bright, clean, safe and comfortable. People were happy with their rooms and had brought in personal items to make them more homely.

People were very happy with the staff team. Comments from people living in the home included, “Staff are very good; they are kind” and “I like the staff; they are very friendly”.

During our inspection the people we spoke with who use the service were able to tell us why they were living in Consort Close. They said staff talk with them about their care and treatment and explain things to them. People told us they were able to talk with staff about things that may be worry and cause them concern.

We spoke with people who use the service during our visit. They told us they felt safe living in Consort Close and that it meets their needs.

One person told us that it took them time to ‘get used to living in the home now they felt it was the best place to live’. Another person told us how they ‘wished they could have moved there sooner’.

They told us they knew what to do if they had any concerns or worries and were confident they would be listened to. One person told us they had residents meetings where they would talk about things that concerned them. Another person told us they would speak to the manager if they were worried about anything. We were also told there was a resident’s forum within the David Lewis Centre where people could meet with the chief executive and share any concerns or worries with him.

The people we spoke with who use the service were very positive about the staff and the manner in which they were supported with their daily life. One person told us ‘the staff were excellent and it was the best move I ever made coming to live in the home’.

During our inspection we spoke with a number of people who use the service. They were very positive about the quality of care and treatment they received. One person told us they ‘could not praise the staff enough for the care they gave them’. They also told us how much they appreciated the efforts that were been made to sort out their health problems. Another person told us that with support and help from staff they were able to get paid employment.