Arundel Road provides support and accommodation for up to 9 young people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health issues and, is one of three homes owned by the Eastbourne and District Mencap charity in Eastbourne. The home is a purpose built bungalow, made up of two separate units, with lounges and dining rooms in each. There is a large garden surrounding the building, all areas are accessible to wheelchair users and the building and gardens are secure.

There were 9 people living in the home during the inspection and all required some assistance with looking after themselves, including personal care and support in the community. People had a range of care needs, including limited vision and hearing and some could show behaviour which may challenge. People were unable to share their experience of life in the home because of their learning disability.

This inspection took place on the 31 January and 2 February 2017 and was unannounced.

A registered manager was present during the inspection. 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.

At our inspection on 21 October 2015 we found the provider was not meeting the regulations with regard to assessing and monitoring of the services provided and notifying the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of incidents that had occurred within the home, which may have affected the support provided. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider met these regulations.

The quality assurance and monitoring system had been reviewed; audits had been carried out to identify areas where improvements were needed, including staffing levels and record keeping, and action had been taken to address these. Notifications had been sent to CQC to when required.

Pre-employment checks for staff had been completed, which meant only suitable staff were working in the home and there were enough staff working in the home to support people appropriately. Staff had attended safeguarding training and demonstrated an understanding of abuse and how to protect people.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The management and staff had attended training and had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager had followed current guidance by making appropriate referrals to the local authority for DoLS assessments.

People made choices about what they had to eat and where they spent their time. They enjoyed their meals and staff offered support when it was needed. People relaxed in the lounges watching programmes of their choice on the TV and listening to music or spent time in the community with assistance from staff to keep them safe. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and treated them with respect and protected their dignity when supporting them with personal care.

People had access to health professionals as and when it was required. The visits were recorded in the support plans with details of any changes.

A complaints procedure was in place. This was displayed on the notice board near the entrance to the building, and had been given to people and their relatives.

Staff and relatives said the registered manager was approachable and they felt involved in developing and improving the services provided.

Arundel Road provides support and accommodation for up to 9 young people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health issues. The home is one of three homes that are owned by the Eastbourne and District Mencap charity. There were 9 people living in the home during the inspection and all required some assistance with looking after themselves, including personal care and support in the community. People had a range of care needs, including limited vision and hearing; some could show behaviour which may challenge and people were unable to share their experience of life in the home because of their learning disability.

The home is a purpose built bungalow, made up of two separate units, with lounges and dining rooms in each unit. There is a large garden surrounding the building and all areas are accessible to wheelchair users and are secure.

A registered manager was responsible for the day to day management of the home and had been in post for several years. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This inspection took place on the 21 October 2015 and was unannounced.

The provider and registered manager had not informed CQC of incidents that had occurred within the home, which may have affected the support provided.

The quality monitoring and assessing system used by the provider to review the support provided at the home was not effective. It had not identified issues found during this inspection, including the gaps in records and support plans.

The staffing levels were not appropriate and staff were unable to evidence that they met all the needs of people living in the home. Pre-employment checks for staff were completed, which meant only suitable staff were working in the home.

Staff had attended safeguarding training and demonstrated an understanding of abuse and how to protect people.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The management and staff had attended training and had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager had followed current guidance by making appropriate referrals to the local authority for DoLS assessments.

People were able to choose what they ate and where and relatives said the food was very good.

People had access to health professionals as and when they required it. The visits were recorded in the support plans with details of any changes to support provided.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and treated them with respect and protected their dignity when supporting them. A range of activities were available for people to participate in if they wished.

A complaints procedure was in place. This was displayed on the notice board near the entrance to the building, and had been given to people and their relatives.

Staff said the registered manager was approachable and they felt they were involved in developing and improving the support provided.

We found a breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Registration Regulations 2009). You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who lived at Arundel Road. They were unable to tell us their experiences because they had complex needs. We met all the people who lived in the home and spoke with five people. We looked at a range of documents, we spoke with a visiting health professional, five care workers and the deputy manager. We contacted two relatives after the inspection.

We examined two care plans, and found that people who lived in the home and their relatives were involved in making decisions about the care provided. We observed staff speaking with people in a respectful and appropriate manner at all times. We saw that they asked people's consent before providing support and enabled people to make choices about how they spent their time.

We looked at the systems for the management of medicines and found appropriate procedures were in place.

People were supported to personalise their rooms, depending on their interests and hobbies. People had access to the dining room and lounges in the part of the building their rooms were situated in. The premises were well maintained and secure.

We looked at the staff rota. The staff we spoke with said they felt there were enough staff on duty to provide the care that people wanted and needed.

A complaints procedure was in place and available to people who lived in the home, relatives and visitors.

The people using the service had complex needs which meant that they were not able to directly tell us about their experiences. We therefore used a number of different methods to help us understand their life at the home. These included joining them for their lunchtime meal and observing their support, looking at their records and speaking with the people who support them.