Ducks Halt is a residential service which provides accommodation, personal care and support for up to five men or women with a mental disorder and/or learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were three women who lived in the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good in all domains. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going 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.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People living at Ducks Halt could be assured that they were receiving care from staff that had the knowledge and skills to support them in everyday living to be as independent as possible.

The registered manager of Ducks Halt was supportive and caring to both people living at the service and people working there. This meant there was a strong and stable team in place with a shared set of values.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on 17 September 2015 and was unannounced. Ducks Halt is a nursing home and provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to five women with a mental disorder and/or learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were four women who lived in the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLS and associated Codes of Practice. The Act, Safeguards and Codes of Practice are in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there is a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals.

The service had appropriate systems in place to keep people safe, and staff followed these guidelines when they supported people. There were sufficient numbers of care staff available to meet people’s care needs and people received their medication as prescribed and on time. The provider also had a robust recruitment process in place to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.

People’s health needs were managed by staff with input from relevant health care professionals. Staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink that met their individual needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Care plans reflected people’s care and support requirements accurately and people’s healthcare needs were well managed. Staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner, and were skilled at responding to people’s care and support needs.

People were encouraged to take part in interests and hobbies that they enjoyed. They were supported to keep in contact with family and develop new friendships so that they could enjoy social activities outside the service. The manager and staff provided people with opportunities to express their views and there were systems in place to manage concerns and complaints.

There was an open culture and the management team demonstrated good leadership skills. Staff were enthusiastic about their roles and they were able to express their views. The management team had systems in place to check and audit the quality of the service. The views of people and their relatives were sought and feedback was used to make improvements and develop the service.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because the people who lived at the service had complex needs which meant that they were not all able to tell us their experiences. We spoke to some people who lived at the service and were able to observe staff supporting people.

We saw that people were supported and encouraged to exercise choice in their day to day lives. Independence was also promoted and staff worked with people to achieve this. People received the care, support and treatment they needed and this was provided in an individual way.

During the course of our inspection we saw that people were supported to express their views and choices by whatever means they were able to and staff clearly understood each person’s behaviours and their way of communicating their needs.

Staff looked after people's healthcare needs in a proactive way. The staff team were well trained and supported to carry out their role.

None of the people we spoke with expressed any concerns about their safety. One person said: “I feel safe here."

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of service that people received.