East View Housing Management Limited – 20 Newlands Close provides personal care, support and accommodation to up to six older people with learning disabilities. This unannounced inspection took place on 15 September 2016. At the time of the inspection six people were using the service.

We last inspected East View Housing Management Limited – 20 Newlands Close in May 2014. The service met all the regulations we checked at that time.

There was a registered manager in post as required. 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, their relatives and healthcare professionals were positive about the service and the quality of care and support. The staff team worked effectively to ensure people had a positive experience of the service.

People received their medicines safely as prescribed People received the treatment and healthcare they needed to keep as well as possible. Staff sought and received people’s consent to the care and treatment they received. The service upheld people’s rights in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The provider used a robust recruitment procedure to ensure people received support from staff vetted as suitable to work with vulnerable people. There was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs and to ensure people had the support to follow their individual interests.

Staff assessed risks to people and their needs and support plans were put in place to keep them safe and ensure they received the support they needed. People were supported to be as independent as possible. The service involved people, their relatives and healthcare professionals in planning people’s care and support.

Staff understood how to protect people from possible harm. There was sufficient guidance for staff about what to do if they suspected abuse and how to report this.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to provide care to people effectively. Staff received training and support through regular supervision and appraisals which enabled them to meet people’s needs.

Staff knew people well and had the skills and knowledge to provide their care. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff provided people’s support in a caring and compassionate way. People had sufficient food to eat and drink and enjoyed the choice of food provided at the service.

The registered manager monitored incidents and accidents and put plans in place to prevent a recurrence. The service sought people’s and their relatives views about the service and acted on their feedback about the way the service was run. People felt able to raise any concerns with staff or the management team. The registered manager made checks on the quality of the service and any necessary improvements were made.

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. We set out to answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us, our observations during the inspection and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm, abuse and breaches of their human rights. Staff we spoke with knew about safeguarding of vulnerable adults and what action to take if they needed to. Records showed that all staff had received training about this. People who lived at the service said that they felt safe. One person told us, “I am very happy here, I feel safe and happy."

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. This is where restrictions may be placed on some people to help keep them safe. While no DoLS applications had needed to be submitted, we found that suitable policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Feedback was sought from people and their relatives and acted upon. Systems were in place to make sure that staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. Records kept by the service ensured that risks were identified and reviewed. This helped reduce risks to people and enabled the service to improve.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care delivered and that their needs had been met. People understood that they had given their consent to receive the care and support provided and knew that they could change their minds about decisions that they had made. Documents in people’s life plans showed that their mental capacity had been assessed in areas such as day to day decision making.

Our observations and speaking with staff showed that they had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well. One person told us, “I get support how I like it, I speak to the staff, I don’t want anything changed."

Is the service caring?

People told us that the staff were kind and attentive. Care records contained personalised information which helped staff to know the people they supported and how to meet their needs. We saw that care workers showed patience, compassion and understood how to support people as individuals. One person told us, “I think it’s lovely, I enjoy living here." Our observation found that staff knew how to communicate effectively with people and we saw how this helped to reduce people’s anxiety and meet their needs.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs were continually assessed. Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests, goals and diverse needs had been recorded and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People had regular review meetings with keyworkers to make sure that changes in needs were identified and action taken.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of their roles in the service and felt supported by the manager. There were quality assurance processes in place to maintain standards in the service. We saw that staff and people who used the service had been given opportunities to express their views.

During our visit we met four out of the five people who lived in the service. We were told that the service was actively looking to fill the last vacancy, and the views of the people in the service would inform this process. The people we spoke with were happy with their placement. They told us about their contact with their families and their arrangements over the Christmas period. They shared their thoughts about the support they received, and what they did with their time during the weekday and at weekends.

We met two staff in addition to the manager. We observed staff interacting in a friendly and companionable manner with the people who lived in the house, providing support and prompts where needed.

In discussion with the people that lived in the house we were satisfied that they were provided with opportunities to be consulted about the development of their care plans, their medicine regimes and influence over household routines, for example development of the weekly menus. People’s dietary needs were understood and catered for.

People we spoke with were confident that if they were unhappy or upset they would feel able to raise these concerns with the manager or other staff.

Staff said they felt well supported but the manager provided support across other home, meaning that the frequency of staff supervision meetings had not been maintained.

The service had recently undergone extensive rebuilding works to increase the number of people who could be supported there from three to six. At our inspection we were shown around the premises. We saw that all internal building works had been completed to a good standard. The accommodation provided a modern, spacious and accessible home suited to the changing dependencies of an aging group of people. We met one of the people who had lived in the home prior to the changes. They told us that they and their relatives had been fully consulted about the proposed changes. They said they had been involved in their selection of bedroom for when they moved back in, and also how they wanted their room to look.

Although the person spoken with expressed reservations about how new people coming in might impact on those already living there. Overall they thought it was a good thing, and looked forward to having more people around. They told us: “I really love what they (staff) have done to my room,”and “It’s like a show house, it’s really lovely.”

We met two staff during our inspection and also met and spoke with the registered manager who was present. We viewed a range of documentation including support plans for two of the people living there, information about safety checks and health and safety, information about staff and also how monitoring of service quality was undertaken.