East View Housing (51a Chapel Park road) is a residential care service for one person with learning disabilities. It is a flat which is attached to another East View Housing care home. The accommodation is on one floor with a lounge, kitchen, dining area, bedroom, bathroom and toilet facilities. Although the flat is part of the same building as 51 Chapel Park road and management and staff are the same, it has its own separate entrance and has been registered as an independent service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. 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.

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.

Staff had a good knowledge of how to keep the person safe and how to recognise signs of abuse. There were individual in-depth risk assessments completed, which were person and task specific. Where risks had been identified, actions had been taken to manage the risks and promote independence. Staff were aware of the person’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to ensure their safety.

Staff received a variety of training to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge to support the person. They received an in-depth induction and regular supervisions, which meant they felt supported and up to date with support needs and policies and procedures.

The person was supported to have maximum choice and control of their life and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Nutritional needs were met. They were given choice and control over what they wanted to eat and drink while still encouraged to make healthy choices. They were also encouraged be independent when preparing food.

The person received care that was personalised to meet their needs. They had a key-worker; this was a named member of staff who had a central role in their life and would oversee their support needs and care plans. The care plan was detailed and tailored to their individual needs. Staff knew the person they cared for very well and what was important to them. Staff supported and encouraged them to engage with a variety of social activities of their choice. Staff treated them with kindness, compassion and respect and promoted their independence and right to privacy.

The person, their relative and staff were complimentary about the management team and how the service was run. Feedback was sought from the person and their relatives and used to improve the care. The person knew how to make a complaint and these were encouraged using an easy-read format to support with individual communication needs. The management team promoted a strong team work ethos which made staff feel appreciated in their role.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 30 September 2015. To ensure we met staff and the person 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 one person with autism.

The person who lived at the service was a younger adult below the age of sixty five years old. They were able to communicate with us verbally. We talked directly with them and used observations to better understand their 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 person. Each risk assessment included clear control measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow to protect the person from potential harm. Risk assessments took account of the person'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 the person's needs. Staffing levels were adjusted according to their 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 the person well and understood how to meet their support needs. The person’s needs and personal preferences had been assessed and were continually reviewed.

Staff were competent to meet the person'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 staff supported the person to make meals that met their needs and choices. Staff knew about and provided for the person's dietary preferences and needs.

Staff communicated effectively with the person, responded to their needs promptly, and treated them with kindness and respect. The person was satisfied about how their care and treatment was delivered. Their privacy was respected and they were supported in a way that respected their dignity.

The person was involved in their day to day care and support. Their care plans were reviewed with their participation and relatives were invited to attend the reviews and contribute.

Staff made prompt referrals to health care professionals when needed. The person's personal records included their individual plans of care, life history, likes and dislikes and preferred activities. The staff promoted the person’s independence and encouraged them to do as much as possible for themselves. They were involved in planning activities of their choice.

The person received care that responded to their individual care and support needs. They 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 the person at the centre of their care and support. Staff held a clear set of values based on respect for the person, ensuring they had freedom of choice and that they were supported 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.

We spoke with the person who lived in the flat. They told us about some of the activities staff supported them with in the community. From our conversation with them they indicated that they liked where they lived, and the staff that supported them. Although their responses did not always correspond to the outcomes we were assessing.

We spoke with the staff member present, who made clear that the person they supported was able to influence who worked with him and what he did each week. The staff member said they were very familiar with the person and their needs. They said that they were alert to any changes in behaviour that would indicate that there was an unresolved issue that needed to be looked into.

We looked at records that detailed the persons care needs and how they were to be supported. We looked at maintenance records for the flat and we checked staff recruitment and training processes.

We spoke with the person who lived in the home. They told us about some of the activities staff supported them with in the community. They indicated that they liked where they lived and the staff that supported them.

We met the service user who lived here. With staff prompting they told us about some of the things they did each day, and their interests and hobbies.

A service user said they liked living in their flat, and helped with shopping and cooking. They told us that they go to church every week, they also told us about a programme on the television that they liked very much.