About the service: This service supported people with learning disabilities. It was registered for the support of up to four people. Four people were using the service at the time of the inspection

• What life is like for people using this service:

People enjoyed living at Creynolds Lane and felt safe and at ease around staff who understood their needs and how to keep them safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

• Staff recognised the risks to people's health, safety and well-being and how to support them.

• People had access to support from sufficient staff when needed.

• Staff recruitment processes were managed centrally by the registered provider and included a check of their background to review staff suitability to work at the home.

• People received support with the medicines. Regular checks were undertaken to ensure people received the correct support by staff who were competent to help them. Protocols were also in place to ensure the support people received was safe.

• The home was clean and odour free.

• The registered manager ensured people's care was based on best practice. Training for staff was continually reviewed to ensure it met people's needs.

• Guidance on people's needs was also shared through supervision and staff meetings.

• People were offered choices at mealtimes and encouraged to decide what menu options they would like.

• People accessed support from healthcare professionals. Advice and guidance was incorporated into people's care planning.

• People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted.

• People and their families were involved in planning their care with support from staff.

• Staff supported people to enjoy a range of activities which reflected people's individual interests. People were encouraged to share their thoughts and ideas for their care.

• People and their families understood how to complain if they wanted to. Staff regularly spoke with people to ensure they were happy with their care. Systems were in place to take any learning from any complaints made.

• Staff enjoyed working at the home and spoke positively about the support and guidance received at the home.

• Staff worked together with the registered manager to ensure people's care was continually monitored, reviewed and reflected changing needs.

• The registered manager worked with stakeholders such as the local authority to ensure practices could be improved

• The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways; promotion of choice and control, independence, inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

•We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Creynolds Lane was published on 06 April 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

We carried out this inspection on 25 February 2016.

Creynolds Lane provides residential care and support for up to four people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the home.

The service has 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. A registered manager had been in post for five years.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and knew what actions to take if they had any concerns. Staff knew about processes to minimise risks to people’s safety.

There were enough staff to care for the people they supported. Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service. Staff received an induction into the organisation, and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively.

Care plans contained information for staff to help them provide personalised care. Care was reviewed regularly with the involvement of people and their relatives.

People received care from regular staff who knew them well. People and relatives told us staff were caring and had the right skills and experience to provide the care required. People were supported with dignity and respect. Staff encouraged people to be independent.

People received medicines from trained, competent staff and medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how to support people with decision making. This included arranging for further support when this was required and best interest meetings.

People had enough to eat and drink during the day, they were offered choices and enjoyed the meals provided. People who had special dietary needs were catered for. People were assisted to manage their health needs, with referrals to other health professionals when required.

People knew how to complain and could share their views and opinions about the service they received. Staff were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the managers, and they would be listened to and acted upon.

There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided. This was through regular communication with people and staff. There were other checks which ensured staff worked in line with policies and procedures. Checks of the environment were undertaken and staff knew the correct procedures to take in an emergency.

The management team continued to adapt the service to meet people’s changing needs.

There were three people living at Creynolds Lane at the time of our visit. Two of the people had little or no communication. We observed the care and support staff provided to them. We also spoke with two members of staff and the manager of the home.

We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect. We also saw them ask people about their choices. Staff we spoke with told us about reading people's body language and facial expressions to ensure people consented to support being provided.

We looked at a care plan which was person centred plan and tailored to the individual's needs. The care plan contained information about the person's preferred routines, likes and dislikes so staff could provide care in a way the person preferred.

We looked at how the service managed medication. We found there needed to be some improvements to ensure medicines were always stored and administered safely.

We looked at how staff were supported. We were satisfied there were processes in place to ensure staff received regular training and supervision.

Records were well ordered and people could be confident their personal information was maintained securely and confidentially.

We visited Creynolds Lane on 16 January 2012. Nobody knew we would be visiting. There were three people living at the home at the time of our visit. Two of the people who lived there had no or little communication. We spoke with the other person who lived there and spent time observing how staff supported people within the home. We also spoke with two members of staff and the assistant manager who was responsible for the day to day running of the home.

During our visit we saw staff supporting people with care and consideration. Staff respected people's decisions as to where they wanted to be and what they wanted to do.

Care plans were clear and detailed what support staff needed to provide. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the care needs recorded in people's individual care plans. We saw that the service referred people to other health care professionals as and when necessary.

Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable people. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide care and support on a one to one basis.

We saw systems were in place to assess the quality of the service provided.

When we visited the service on 7 December 2011 we spent two hours in the communal rooms of the home watching and listening to how people were cared for and supported. We saw that workers interacted constantly with people, seeking their views about how their day was run and helping them to make decisions. People were treated with warmth and respect. We saw that a cooked meal was being prepared from scratch with fresh ingredients. Two people had their lunch out at a pub that day.

People had their own bedrooms that they could use any time, the specialist equipment that they needed and enough communal space to get away from others if they wished.

Care files were clear and well organised and welfare and monitoring records were kept up to date. People had comprehensive plans of support that were individual to them. Support workers knew people well, understood their needs and how risks presented by their condition should be managed. People were helped to get access to general and specialist medical treatment. Psychologists guidelines for one system put in place to support a persons mental health had not always been followed. We have asked the provider organisation to improve this situation to reduce risk.

There were three workers available on shift to support four people. All four people had high needs. All of the workers on duty on the day we visited were working a double shift to cover vacancies. We have asked the provider organisation to improve this situation to reduce risk.

We asked the person whose care we followed if they were happy and well. They said "I'm alright."