This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 12 July 2017.

Dimensions – Parrot Farmhouse is a residential care home which is registered to provide a service for up to eight people with learning disabilities. Some people have other associated difficulties including physical, sensory and emotional needs. There were six people living in the home on the day of the visit. The service generally provides a service for six rather than the eight people they are registered for. The service has three ground floor and three first floor bedrooms. The bedrooms do not have en-suite facilities but there are adequate numbers of bathrooms to meet people’s needs.

At the last inspection, on 30 June 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

There is a registered manager running the service. 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.

People continued to be protected from abuse by staff who had been trained in and understood how to safeguard vulnerable adults. They continued to keep people as safe as possible from harm because they followed the robust health and safety policies and procedures developed by the provider.

There were enough staff, on duty, to ensure people were supported safely. Recruitment procedures ensured, as far as possible, that staff appointed were suitable and safe to work with people. People were given their medicines in safely.

The well- trained staff team continued to meet people’s current and changing needs effectively. People’s health and well-being needs were met and care staff supported people to access support from other health and social care professionals as necessary.

People continued to be supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff offered them care in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The staff team were well established, knew people well and remained kind, caring and committed to their work and to the individuals who live in the service. The staff team continued to respect people’s equality and diversity needs and provided totally individualised (person centred) care.

The staff team were highly responsive to people’s individual needs and provided exceptionally responsive and flexible care.

People continued to receive very good care from a well led service. The registered manager was experienced and qualified and listened and responded to people, staff and others. The registered manager was described as approachable, open, caring and very supportive. The quality of care the service provided was assessed, reviewed, improved and developed as necessary.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 30 June 2015.

Dimensions - Parrot Farmhouse is registered to provide care for up to eight people. The home provides a service for people with learning and associated behavioural and physical disabilities. There were six people living in the service on the day of the visit. The service had ground and first floor accommodation. The bedrooms did not have en-suite facilities.

There is a registered manager running the service. 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.

People, staff and visitors to the home were kept as safe as possible by using a variety of methods. Care workers were trained in and understood how to protect people in their care from harm or abuse. The health and safety of people who live in the home, staff and visitors to the home was taken seriously. Individual and general risks to people were identified and managed appropriately. The service’s recruitment processes and procedures tried to ensure the staff they employed were suitable and safe to work there.

People were helped to look after their health and well-being. Care staff were skilled in using individual’s specific communication methods. They helped them to make as many decisions for themselves as they could. People were encouraged to be as independent as they were able to be, as safely as possible. The house was homely, clean and comfortable. People were able to use the well-kept outside space as they chose. People’s rooms reflected their individual preferences and tastes. The staff team were well supported by the registered and area managers to ensure they were able to offer good care to people.

Peoples’ rights were recognised and maintained. The service understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. DoLS provide a lawful way to deprive someone of their liberty, provided it is in their own best interests or is necessary to keep them from harm. Appropriate DoLS applications were made.

People were offered support by caring, kind and patient staff. The home had a stable staff group who had built strong relationships with the people who lived there. Staff members had an in-depth knowledge of people and their needs. Staffing ratios and the alertness of the staff team meant that people’s needs were met and their requests for help or attention were responded to quickly.

People were given the opportunity to participate in a variety of activities both individually and with others. People were treated with dignity and respect at all times. The individualised care planning ensured people’s equality and diversity was respected. People were as involved as possible in all aspects of their daily life.

Relatives told us the registered manager was very approachable and inclusive. The registered manager and staff team made sure that the quality of the service they offered was always maintained and improved when possible.

At the time of our visit there were six people living at the home. People at the home mainly used non-verbal communication methods in their interaction with staff. We spent time with people and observed their interaction with staff. We saw people living at the home made their individual choices known to staff, and staff responded appropriately.

We reviewed care plans and found them to be comprehensive. During our observations we saw evidence care plans were followed by staff to deliver care which was focused on the individual people living in the home.

We looked round the home and followed up the provider's action plan from a previous inspection where we had found non-compliance. We found the provider had taken action to refurbish the bathrooms and replace a broken window pane.

There was a procedure in place to recruit and select suitably qualified staff. People who live at the home were involved in the recruitment process.

The provider operated a complaints procedure which was in a suitable format for the people at the home.

At the time of our visit there were six people living at the home. Two people living at the home were out for most of the day and the four other people who remained at home used non-verbal communication methods in their interaction with staff. We spent time with people and observing their interaction with staff.

We saw people living at the home making their individual choices known to staff and staff responding appropriately.

During our visit a Community Learning Disability Nurse made a visit to the home. He told us that the staff at the home worked well with his team and that he felt they were "doing a brilliant job".

We reviewed care plans and found them to be comprehensive. During our observations we saw evidence the care plans were followed by the staff to deliver care which was focused on the individual people living in the home.

We spoke to staff about the training they received and we reviewed some of the documents relating to training. Staff told us they felt they received the right kind of training to do their job and that they were supported by management at the home.

We spent time looking round the home and have made observations regarding the maintenance of the building and the lack of a plan for scheduled maintenance. We found some wooden window frames had rotted and one window had a cracked pane of glass. Two of the bathrooms used by people living at the home were poorly maintained.