This inspection took place on 20 July 2016 and was announced.

Eamonn Francis Friel - 87 Briar Avenue provides personal care for one person living with a learning disability who has lived at the home since 2001. The provider and his partner support the person with their day to day living tasks and the service is based in their family home.

We last inspected Eamonn Francis Friel - 87 Briar Avenue in August 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

There was a registered manager in post who was also the provider of 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.

Individualised support was given each day to the person using the service and this was provided by people who knew them very well.

The provider was aware of safeguarding procedures. Appropriate recruitment information was available along with records of up to date training for the provider and his partner. No other care staff were employed at the home.

Any risks associated with the person’s care, daily routines and activities were identified with action taken to minimise these. Medicines were safely stored and given as prescribed with up to date records kept.

The service understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. There were restrictions on the person using the service for their safety and the provider was in process of obtaining a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation.

The provider understood their role and responsibilities. There were systems in place to help ensure the safety and quality of the service provided.

One person was living at 87 Briar Avenue at the time of this announced inspection and they had lived there for nearly thirteen years. They chose not to speak to us during our visit.

We looked at the person’s care file as well as other records held by the provider including those kept for training and health and safety.

Is the service safe?

Daily living profiles and support plans were in place around important areas such as personal hygiene, eating and drinking, activities of daily living and identified health needs.

Health and safety checks took place to help make sure that the home environment was safe.

Is the service effective?

We saw that the person received support only from the registered provider and his wife with no other staff employed at the service. They treated the person using the service as a family member and clearly knew them very well.

Records showed that the register provider and his partner had received training that helped them do their jobs.

Is the service caring?

The family setting and the providers’ knowledge of the person meant that the service was individually tailored to them. We saw that care was taken to ensure they were not caused undue anxiety or distress.

Is the service responsive?

We saw records confirming that the home liaised with other professionals to help the person manage their health needs. The home’s knowledge of the individual meant that they could advocate effectively for them and provide important information when required.

Is the service well-led?

Detailed care documentation was in place with support plans written in the first person from the view point of the person using the service. These and other care documents such as risk assessments were all seen to be kept up to date.

One person was receiving a service at the home at the time of our inspection. The provider told us this person had lived at the home for over twelve years. However they were attending a day service so we were not able to speak to them. We contacted the person using the services care manager. They told us when they last reviewed the placement there did not seem to be any problems and they were pleased with the environment.

We saw that the home was clean and well decorated. The person using the services placement at the home, care plan and risk assessments had been kept under review. However we found the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place in relation to the storage and recording of medicine.

We spoke the person using the service and they confirmed that they were happy living at the home however communication with them was difficult.

One person lives at the home; they have lived at 87 Briar Avenue for over eleven years. They had originally been placed at the home by a family placement scheme. When the scheme closed down the registered provider registered their home as a care home in order to offer continued accommodation, care and support to this person. The person using the service told us that they had lived there for a long time and they considered themselves to be part of the family. They told us they went to a day centre during the week and went out for meals and visited friends in the evenings or at weekends. They told us the registered provider and their partner treated them as part of the family and they were very happy living at Briar Avenue.