East View Housing, 51 Chapel Park road accommodates up to four people with learning disabilities and some associated physical or sensory disabilities. The building was situated over two floors with a communal lounge, dining room and kitchen as well as a shower-room and a bath room. Toilet facilities were ensuites or located close to people’s bedrooms.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. (Registering the Right Support CQC policy)

At their previous inspection, Chapel Park Road were rated as Good. During this inspection, we found the service remained good.

The service had a registered manager. 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 were safe. Staff had thorough understanding of how to protect people against harm and there were suitable levels of staff available to ensure people’s needs could be met at any time. Staff were recruited safely and appropriate background checks were made to ensure their character and skills were suitable to support people. There were individualised risk assessments for people and the environment and building they lived in, including emergency evacuation plans for in the event of an emergency such as a fire.

Medicines were managed in such a way that people received them safely. People were only supported by staff that were trained in administering medicines. People had their own medicine cabinets in their bedrooms to encourage maximum independence and control. Where possible, people took their medicines independently and used an easy read document to help them do this.

Staff received a wide range of training to ensure they could support people safely. Staff also benefited from taking part in regular supervision and appraisal to help them develop their skills and knowledge. Staff felt supported and encouraged in their personal development and relatives were clear that staff had the skills and knowledge to support people. Staff attended regular team meetings where they could discuss any concerns they had. There was a robust induction programme that involved shadowing of experienced staff, completing a qualification and developing a thorough understanding of people and their routines.

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. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety. Staff had sought support from health professionals to enable people to make decisions about their own health and wellbeing.

People’s nutritional needs were met and people were given choice and control over what they wanted to eat and drink.

A relative and health professionals considered the caring nature of the service to be of the highest standard. People had built strong relationships with staff, and everyone showed there was mutual trust and respect. People’s independence was continually focused on and encouraged using a variety of sources, technology and other equipment.

People had their own key-worker; this was a named member of staff who had a central role in their lives and would oversee their support needs and care plan’s. Each person had a clear and detailed care plan tailored to their individual

This inspection took place on 30 September 2015. To ensure we met staff and the people that lived at the service, we gave short notice of our inspection.

This location is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of four people with learning disabilities and autism. Three people lived at the service at the time of our inspection.

People who lived at the service were younger adults below the age of sixty five years old. People had different communication needs. However, everybody was able to communicate verbally. We talked directly with people and used observations to better understand people's needs.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual. Each risk assessment included clear control measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow to make sure people were protected from harm. Risk assessments took account of people’s right to make their own decisions.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of reoccurrence could be reduced. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were adjusted according to people’s changing needs. There were safe recruitment procedures in place which included the checking of references.

Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.

Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their support needs. Each person’s needs and personal preferences had been assessed and were continually reviewed.

Staff were competent to meet people’s needs. Staff received on-going training and supervision to monitor their performance and professional development. Staff were supported to undertake a professional qualification in social care to develop their skills and competence.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to assess whether a person needed a DoLS.

The service provided meals and supported people to make meals that met their needs and choices. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and needs.

Staff communicated effectively with people, responded to their needs promptly, and treated them with kindness and respect. People were satisfied about how their care and treatment was delivered. People’s privacy was respected and people were assisted in a way that respected their dignity.

People were involved in their day to day care and support. People’s care plans were reviewed with their participation and relatives were invited to attend the reviews and contribute.

People were promptly referred to health care professionals when needed. Personal records included people’s individual plans of care, life history, likes and dislikes and preferred activities. The staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves. People were involved in planning activities of their choice.

People received care that responded to their individual care and support needs. People were provided with accessible information about how to make a complaint and received staff support to make their views and wishes known.

There was an open culture that put people at the centre of their care and support. Staff held a clear set of values based on respect for people, ensuring people had freedom of choice and support to be as independent as possible.

People and staff were encouraged to comment on the service provided and their feedback was used to identify service improvements. There were audit processes in place to monitor the quality of the service.

All the people that lived in the house were able to express their views but some chose not to, or their responses did not relate to the outcomes we were inspecting. One person said they would prefer not to speak to us on this occasion. At this inspection we looked at how people were cared for, how their nutritional needs were being met and how the service engaged with other agencies. The people we were able to speak with told us they liked living in the house and enjoyed the activities they were involved in. We found that people were settled with established routines that they had opportunities to change if they wanted to.

We looked at staff recruitment and training processes. We saw that there was an appropriate induction programme for new staff, and that all staff had access to regular mandatory and qualification training. We spoke with four staff in addition to the manager. Staff told us about training they had received and said they saw the manager for individual supervision on a regular basis. Staff said they felt supported by colleagues and the manager and had access to staff meetings.

We looked at care records for people living in the house and saw that these made clear peoples needs and how they should be supported. Any risks were appropriately assessed. We saw that records were well ordered and kept updated. We looked at records for the maintenance of equipment and saw that these were all in date.

We spoke with three of the four people who lived in the home, they were happy to talk about some of the activities they undertook each week. In our conversations with them they indicated that they were satisfied with their life at the home, they felt able to raise any issues of concern, or express interest in activities they would like to do with staff.

We saw all four people who live in the house and spoke with three of them.

They said they liked their rooms, two said they liked living at the home; one said “it’s alright”.

People we spoke with told us about the things they were interested in and liked to do, one person said staff helped them to do the things they liked doing.