Fenham Lodge provides accommodation and personal care for up to 7 people who have a learning disability and may also have mental health needs. On the day of our inspection there were 7 people living in the service. When we last visited the service it was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. There were sufficient numbers of care staff on shift with the correct skills and knowledge to keep people safe. There were appropriate arrangements in place for medicines to be stored and administered safely.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. Management and staff understood their responsibility in this area. Staff were committed to ensuring all decisions were made in people’s best interest.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Care plans were individual and contained information about how people preferred to communicate and their ability to make decisions.

People were encouraged to take part in activities that they enjoyed, and were supported to keep in contact with family members. When needed, they were supported to see health professionals and referrals were put through to ensure they had the appropriate care and treatment.

Relatives and staff were complimentary about the management of the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service.

The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

Fenham Lodge provides accommodation and personal care for up to 7 people who have a learning disability and may also have mental health needs. On the day of our inspection there were 7 people living in the service. When we last visited the service it was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. There were sufficient numbers of care staff on shift with the correct skills and knowledge to keep people safe. There were appropriate arrangements in place for medicines to be stored and administered safely.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. Management and staff understood their responsibility in this area. Staff were committed to ensuring all decisions were made in people’s best interest.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Care plans were individual and contained information about how people preferred to communicate and their ability to make decisions.

People were encouraged to take part in activities that they enjoyed, and were supported to keep in contact with family members. When needed, they were supported to see health professionals and referrals were put through to ensure they had the appropriate care and treatment.

Relatives and staff were complimentary about the management of the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service.

The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

During our visit we saw evidence of staff gaining consent and acting on the consent given by people who used the service. Our observations showed us that staff waited for either implied or verbal consent before undertaking a task with a person or offering the person a choice. We also saw evidence that the provider had sought to gain written consent to the agreed support and assistance given by staff within the care and support plans we reviewed.

Staff had access to detailed care and support plans to ensure that they provided people with safe, appropriate, individual care and support. This was done in a way that respected an individual’s right to live as independent as possible. A person we spoke with told us that they were, “Happy living here.” Another person said, “I am happy here. Staff make me happy. Staff help me cook.”

The provider had not recruited any new staff members since they had registered with the Care Quality Commission in 2010. However we did see that the provider undertook necessary checks on prospective staff members to ensure that they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

In the staff files we reviewed we saw evidence of staff training and staff supervisions and appraisals. This indicated to us that people using the service received safe support and care from suitable, skilled and knowledgeable staff.

We spoke with five people who used the service. They told us that they were happy living in the service. One person said, “I like living here.”

People told us that they chose what they wanted to do in their lives and that the staff listened to them and acted on what they said. One person said, “I choose what I want to do.” People told us that they had made choices about the activities they participated in, their work and what they ate.

We saw that staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner. The staff listened to and acted on the choices that people made during our inspection.

We looked at the care records of three people who used the service and found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Staff personnel records that were seen showed that staff were trained to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

During our visit on 31 January 2012 we spoke with four people living at the service. Following our visit we also spoke with three relatives. All of the people living at the service had some difficulty in understanding and responding to verbal communication. Most of the information we obtained was from the records we looked at and from discussion with relatives and staff. People told us that they were very happy living at the service. Relatives told us they could not fault the care and could not have wished for anyone more caring than the provider. One told us “They care for them as we would treat our own children.”