The inspection took place on the 6 June 2017 and was unannounced.

Fenton Lodge provides care and support for up to 3 people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were 2 people living at the service.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 12 September 2016. A breach of one legal requirement was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirement in relation to ensuring the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed and people’s legal rights were protected.

We undertook this focused inspection to check the provider had followed their action plan and to confirm that they now met this legal requirement. This report only covers our findings in relation to that requirement and the key area of effective. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Fenton Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

There was a registered manager in post although they were not available on the day of 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.

Since the last inspection improvements had been made to ensure people’s rights were protected under the Mental capacity Act 2005. Systems were in place to ensure that the principles of the MCA were followed. Staff demonstrated knowledge and understanding of people’s needs in relation to supporting them to make decisions and seeking their informed consent to the care they received.

People were supported by staff who received regular training and supervision to support them in their role. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and were able to contribute to improvements within the service.

People were supported to have a nutritious diet and were able to make choices regarding what they had to eat and drink. People were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to a range of healthcare professionals.

The inspection took place on the 12 September 2016 and was unannounced.

Fenton Lodge provides care and support for up to 3 people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were 2 people living at the service.

There was no registered manager in post. The previous registered manager had moved on within the organisation and had de-registered in September 2016. A new manager had been appointed and was in the process of applying for registration. 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. The manager supported us to access records and information during the inspection.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not followed and capacity assessments relating to specific decisions had not been completed. However, we observed staff involved people in decisions regarding their day to day lives and routinely gained consent from people before providing care.

People were supported by sufficient staff who worked flexibly to ensure their needs were met. Staff received an induction to the service and underwent training to support them in their role. Recruitment checks were completed prior to staff starting work to ensure they were suitable to work at the service. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and received regular supervision to monitor their progress and development.

Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in safeguarding people from potential abuse. Risks to people’s safety and well-being were assessed and measures were in place to keep people safe. Environmental risks were monitored and checks on equipment were completed. There was a contingency plan in place to ensure that people would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency.

Medicines were managed safely in line with best practice and people received their medicines in line with their prescriptions. Staff competency in administering medicines was assessed and policies and procedures were in place to provide guidance. People’s healthcare needs were met and detailed records were kept of all healthcare appointments.

People were involved in the planning and review of their care and were supported by staff who knew them well. People’s preferences were clearly listed and people who were important to them were involved decisions relating to their care where appropriate. People had choice regarding the food and people’s nutritional needs were met.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who were able to describe their needs and preferences in detail. Staff treated people with respect and their privacy was protected. There was a strong emphasis on promoting people’s independence and choices were offered. People had access to a range of activities in line with their hobbies and interests.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the home. Where actions were identified these were completed in a timely manner. Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff through survey’s meetings and reviews. Policies and procedures were in place and records were well maintained to ensure staff had easy access to information. There was a positive culture and staff were clear about their responsibilities in providing person centred care.

During the inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We spoke with one relative of a person living at Fenton Lodge who told us their relative was looked after with great care and tenderness. They said the home was "wonderful". It was not possible for people to tell us directly about their experiences of living at the home but one person was able to show us their care records and express their opinions. The person seemed very happy living at the home and was engaged in activities outside of the home on most days.

We observed staff interacting with people and found they communicated in ways that people understood. This was indicated in the ways they responded to staff. People's records contained information about their preferences and staff supported people in line with guidance provided in people's care plans. This meant the provider had ensured the staff met people's needs for care and support.

People who used the service were not able to communicate verbally. They shared their views through gestures, facial expressions and body language wherever possible. We observed staff interacting positively with people when supporting them with activities of daily living.

Staff were observed engaging with people and explaining to them what was happening and offering choices to them. They were knowledgable about the needs of the individual and responded in a way that encouraged them to make choices for themselves and promoting their independence. Staff were observed interacting with people, listening to them and responding to them in a polite and courteous way.

People who used the service bedrooms were personalised and contained pictures and other objects that were personal to them. There were pictures and symbols displayed around the building which explained every day activities. Peoples methods of communication had been identified within their individual care plans and communication passports.

We saw that staff had received the appropriate training to ensure that they possed the skills and knowledge to enable them to provide the care and support to meet the individual needs of the people who used the service, respecting their dignity and promoting their independence.

People using the service have special communication needs with limited verbal skills. Because we were not familiar with their individual methods of communicating we were mostly unable to obtain their views. One person did convey satisfaction with their care by stating “yes” when asked a direct question if they were happy with their care.