Deansbrook Farm is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to nine people with learning disabilities or those with autistic spectrum disorder. There were six people in the service when we inspected on 1 September 2016. This was an unannounced inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 was a positive, open and inclusive culture in the service. The ethos of care was person-centred and valued each person as an individual. People were consistently treated with kindness, dignity, respect and understanding.

People received person centred care from staff who had an in-depth knowledge and understanding of each person, about their life and what mattered to them. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment processes checked the suitability of staff to work in the service.

Care plans reflected the care and support that each person required and preferred to meet their assessed needs, promote their health and wellbeing and enhance their quality of life.

People presented as relaxed and at ease in their surroundings and told us that they felt safe. Staff knew how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. People knew how to raise concerns and were confident that any concerns would be listened and responded to.

People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner. People were prompted, encouraged and reassured as they took their medicines and given the time they needed.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to the support they were providing. The management team and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were empowered to have choice, independence and control.

The service had a quality assurance system in place which was used to identify shortfalls and to drive continuous improvement.

We undertook an inspection at Deansbrook Farm because we had received information of concern.

During our inspection on 4 June and an additional visit on 6 June 2014 we spoke with five people who used the service. We also spoke with the registered manager and nine staff.

Deansbrook Farm provided a service for seven people at the time of our inspection. Some people who used the service were not able to tell us verbally about their views and experiences so we used observation and interaction to gain an understanding of their care and support.

We looked at the care and support records for three people who used the service, records relating to consent and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse, staffing, support and supervision and quality assurance checks.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

Staff had received a range of training to protect people who used the service from harm. They were aware of the action they needed to take if they suspected abuse had taken place.

We found that the service had suitable arrangements in place to assess people’s mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Mental capacity assessments had been completed appropriately and applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been made.

The policies, procedures and quality monitoring of the service included health and safety, fire evacuation and reviews of care planning and delivery. People were provided with care and support that ensured their welfare and safety.

Is the service effective?

People's assessments showed that their care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured that their needs were being met.

Individualised care meant that people were fully involved, where possible, in choices and decisions about their lives. This made their care and support more effective as it enhanced their wellbeing and independence. One person said, “I get on alright here, I like it here, I get to do things.”

Is the service caring?

We saw positive interaction between staff and people who used the service. Staff spoke with people in a caring, respectful, considerate and encouraging way.

Staff had a good knowledge of people's likes and dislikes, their everyday needs and their personalities. People's preferences and diverse needs had been recorded in their support files and care and protection was provided in accordance with their wishes. One person said, “They [staff member] are nice, I like them.”

Is the service responsive?

Regular checks on the needs of people who used the service were undertaken to ensure there were sufficient staff on duty to respond to people's needs appropriately.

The service offered a range of activities for people to enjoy. These had been developed from listening to the views of people who used the service and information from people who knew them well. One person said, “I like going out.”

The service worked well with other agencies. A range of health and social care professionals from the community were involved in people's care. This showed that people received their care in a joined up way.

Is the service well-led?

A comprehensive quality monitoring process and on-going improvement plan was in place.

Regular care reviews were held with the input from specialist professionals about people's complex behaviour and quality of life. This ensured that the service put people’s needs first and ensured that staff were able to support them appropriately.

The service was well-led as it was continually improving in its care provision and in the environment to make Deansbrook Farm a good place to live and work.

Some people spoke with us but others had complex needs and were unable to discuss their care with us, which meant they could not tell us their experiences. We observed people to be happy and relaxed in the company of staff.

We observed staff speaking with people and giving them choice over which activities they wanted to participate in, and how they wanted to spend their day.

People received care and support that met their needs and which took into account their individual preferences. Staff were able to demonstrate that they understood people's specific needs and that the care provided was person-centred.

We reviewed the provision of food and drink and people told us they liked the food provided.

We found that staff received the training and support they required to provide care and support safely.

We saw there were procedures in place to respond to people’s complaints appropriately.

People who lived at Deansbrook Farm had different ways of communicating with us. They showed us that they were relaxed and comfortable with the staff and we saw they were engaged in a range of everyday tasks, working side by side with the staff.

Staff provided care, support and direction in a sensitive and encouraging way. This meant that people were enabled to carry out and enjoy everyday tasks and activities both in the home and in the community. One person said, “The staff are alright here, they are going to help me stick to things and then I can go to college maybe”.

All the necessary policies and procedures, records, quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place for the protection of people who lived at Deansbrook Farm. Staff were supported by the management and carried out their support roles efficiently and professionally.

During our visit we were able to hold a conversation with two people who use the service and to view others experience through our observations. People with whom we spoke told us they were happy and liked where they were living. People also told us that the care and support they received was good and that they liked the staff working within the service.