Edward Road is a residential care home registered to provide personal care to three people living with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection, two people received a service, there was one vacancy.

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.

The systems in place to provide information about the service on offer and other contact details of other professionals needed improvement. The registered manager told us that if people wanted information this would be provided. However there was no system in place to provide information to people important to those living at the home in a way that did not involve staff being consulted. The registered manager acknowledged this and agreed to look at this issue with the provider.

There was a weakness in the responses made in relation to certain behaviours. Whilst we found that staff knew people’s needs and behaviours well they were not always recording their observations. This made it difficult for management and other health care professionals to usefully analyse incident reports and develop strategies to support this affected by the behaviours. The registered manager agreed that they needed to update the auditing of this issue.

There were plans in place to update the home and to clear the gardens of equipment that had become unused or in disrepair. The provider told us that throughout December 2016 works would start on addressing the maintenance in the home. They also shared with us a documented action plan that identified what works would be carried out and by when.

Staff understood the importance of people consenting to support and encouraged choice making where possible. They understood the importance of enabling people to make their own decisions wherever possible and seeking the involvement of appropriate people when making decisions to provide care in a person’s best interests.

People receiving support were safe and well cared for. They were protected from harm because staff understood the risks they faced and how to reduce these risks. They also knew how to identify and respond to abuse.

Staff were consistent in their knowledge of the person’s needs and spoke with confidence about the care they provided to meet these needs. Care was delivered in a way that met the person’s needs and promoted their independence and dignity.

There were enough safely recruited staff to ensure the care could be provided. Staff told us told us they felt supported in their roles and had received training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills to do their job effectively.

People had access to health care professionals and were supported to maintain their health by staff. Staff understood the need to share information about changes in people’s health.

Relatives spoken with were positive about the care their relation received and told us the staff tried to ensure people had positive experiences.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and people were encouraged to contribute to the management of the service.

The registered manager told us that mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings had not taken place for the care that the three people received. However we saw that some meetings had been held for people regarding consent about other decisions, such as finances and medication.

We looked at two people's care plans, and saw that care plans included detailed information about their needs, identified risks and how they preferred to be supported. However not all risks had been assessed. We saw for one person with swallowing difficulties that advice had not been sought from a speech and language therapist to provide advice to manage this risk.

Medicines were prescribed and appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the recording of medicines . All staff told us that all staff received training on the administration of medicines.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Staff told us that two references were obtained and checks were made whether they had any criminal convictions or cautions before they started work.

We spoke with three relatives who all told us that they had not had to make a complaint but were able to raise any concerns with the registered manager. One person told us, "Generally speaking I am asked at the review meeting if there are any issues or concerns to raise."

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because people had limited speech and difficulties with communication related to their disability. We met two of the three people who lived here observed one person in their day to day environment. We spoke to relatives, gathered evidence from the care records and discussions with staff.

The home was adapted to meet the needs of the individuals who lived there including one person who used a wheelchair. The care plans had been developed in a person centred way and we found that service users were respected. The involvement of relatives was supported and encouraged. Relatives told us they were satisfied with the care overall however would like greater involvement and regular progress reports.

There were systems and procedures for identifying and managing risk however due to the absence of up to date risk assessments, an effective and safe service could not be assured for each individual.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding and demonstrated knowledge and skills in this area. We saw that safeguarding incidents were investigated as part of the provider policy.

Staff received training and development, supervision and annual appraisals. Staff told us that they felt supported.

There were established systems for managing health and safety, individual reviews and learning from incidents.