This inspection took place on 21 September 2018 and was announced.

Creative Support-Beardall Court provides support to eight people with learning disabilities, autism or associated related conditions. Personal care is provided to four of the people who use the service. People live in self-contained flats, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. Two of the four people who receive personal care receive outreach support as they live nearby in their own homes. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with 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 impairment using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection in May 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. 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.

People told us they felt safe and were well cared for. They told us their privacy, dignity and confidentiality were maintained. There were sufficient staff hours available currently to meet people’s needs in a safe and timely way, and staff roles were flexible to allow this. Staffing capacity was to be reviewed as some people’s needs were changing as they were becoming more dependent.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people’s care needs. A system was in place for staff to receive supervision and appraisal.

Staff knew about safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures. Staff were subject to robust recruitment checks. Arrangements for managing people’s medicines were also safe. Appropriate processes were in place for the administration of medicines.

People were supported to have maximum control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; policies and procedures supported this practice. Staff knew the people they were supporting well and people were empowered to make meaningful decisions about how they lived their lives. People were supported to become as independent as possible whatever their level of need, to enable them to lead a more fulfilled life.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed. People were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet.

Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks. Records did not reflect the care provided by staff. We have made a recommendation about support plans being more person-centred with a system of more regular evaluation.

People were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and they were introduced to new activities. People were encouraged and supported to go out and engage with the local community and maintain relationships that were important to them.

Systems were in place to monitor and review the quality and effectiveness of the service. People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with people or family members and their views were used to improve the service. Staff and people who used the service said the registered manager was supportive and a

This inspection took place on 11 March 2016 by two inspectors and was unannounced. An additional visit took place on 17 March 2016 by one inspector.

Beardall Court is a two storey building providing supported living accommodation for 8 adults. Each flat has a bathroom, bedroom, living room and kitchen. The service has communal lounge/kitchen, laundry and garden. We last inspected the service on 9th January 2014 and found the service to be meeting standards.

The service has a registered manager in place. 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.

There were detailed safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place which provided information about how to recognise the signs of abuse, and how to respond to any concerns people may have.

People had individual risk assessments to support them with promoting their independence and safety. In addition to individual risk assessments, the service also had a range of environmental risk assessments in place. Regular health and safety checks had been carried out in relation to the premises to support with promoting a safe and clean environment.

We were invited into people’s flats and found they were personalised and decorated to their taste. The communal areas of the service were clean and well maintained.

Records within staff files demonstrated proper recruitment checks were being carried out. These checks include employment and reference checks, identity checks and a disclosure and barring service check (DBS). A DBS check is a report which details any offences which may prevent the person from working with vulnerable people. They help providers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff were supported with regular training opportunities that linked to the care and support needs of people living in the service.

People were supported with managing their medicines in accordance with their individual care and support needs. The service had safe systems in place to check that people were managing with their medicines.

The manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. People were supported with decision making and we saw that capacity assessments had been carried out relating to specific decisions.

People living in the service were well supported with promoting and maintaining their health.

There was information displayed in the main areas of the service relating to health and nutrition. Staff had a good understanding of how to support people with specific health related needs such as diabetes and Coeliac disease and how to promote good nutritional health and wellbeing.

People had personalised support plans in place with clear detail about how they preferred their support to be provided. Support plans also detailed information about people’s wishes, aspirations and goals and how they wanted support to lead an independent lifestyle.

Complaints information was displayed in the main areas of the building and was presented in various formats to support people who may have difficulty with understanding written words. People knew how to raise any concerns if they were unhappy about their care and support or the service.

Relatives said staff always kept in touch and they were kept well informed about events regarding their son or daughter. Relatives were happy with the care and support their son or daughter was receiving.

The service had

We spoke with six people who used the service about the care and support provided.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the service they received. One person told us, “It’s nice here and it’s got a good atmosphere. We all get on well together, the staff are fantastic.”

Relationships between people and staff were clearly good. People told us and we saw in practice, staff treated people with respect and helped them to remain as independent as possible. One person said, “I love and enjoy having my own flat.”

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

The accommodation was clean and we saw there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found staff recruitment procedures were in place and records showed that these were followed when new staff were appointed. We saw appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. One person told us, “The staff are nice, friendly and caring; I feel safe and protected here.”

The service had a complaints procedure that detailed the process to be followed in the event of a compliant. This indicated complaints should be documented, investigated and responded to within a set timescale.

We saw that people’s personal records, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the service were accurate, fit for purpose, kept securely and could be located promptly when needed.

Eight people were using this service at the time of our inspection. We spoke with four of them about their experiences of the care and support they received from this service.

Relationships between staff and people were clearly good. People told us that staff spoke to them nicely and we heard good natured exchanges of conversation during our visit.

People we spoke with were positive about the care and support they received. Comments included, “Staff are nice. I like being here because they help you with your cooking,” They (staff) have always got a lovely smile on their face,” and “Staff are canny (nice), I love living here.”

People we spoke with confirmed they felt safe living at the service, and with staff who worked there. People told us, “I trust them” and “Yes, I feel safe.” Safeguarding arrangements were in place at the service.

We did not speak with people who were using the service about staff support or training. We found that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely.

People told us they could talk to staff if they were worried about anything, or if they had any complaints. Comments included, “If I need help, I know where to go” and “They help me with my flat checks. We check the water temperatures and make sure the wire from the hoover is not lying across the floor.” We found systems were in place to assess the quality of the service, and to identify and manage risks to people.