This inspection took place on 11 August 2016 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one adult social care inspector. This was the first inspection of the service since it’s registration with the Care Quality Commission in February 2014.

Fernery House is a large house which is situated on the sea front and is close to the town’s shops and leisure facilities. Accommodation is arranged over three floors with stairs giving access to each floor. The home can accommodate up to seven people and it provides support to people who have autism. All bedrooms are for single occupancy and the home is staffed 24 hours a day.

At the time of our inspection there were four people living at the home. Some people were not able to tell us about their experiences of life at the home so we therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with staff and other stakeholders to help form our judgements.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 registered manager was not available on the day of our inspection. Staff described the registered manager as open and approachable. A member of staff told us “The home is really well-managed, organised and runs very smoothly.” Staff told us the provider’s management team were accessible, approachable and supportive.

There were enough staff deployed to help keep people safe. People were supported to live the life they chose with reduced risks to themselves or others. There was an emphasis on supporting people to develop and maintain independent living skills in a safe way.

There were policies and procedures which helped to reduce the risks of harm or abuse to the people who lived at the home. These were understood and followed by staff. These included recognising and reporting abuse, the management of people’s finances, staff recruitment and the management of people’s medicines.

People were supported by a caring staff team who knew them well. Staff morale was good and there was a happy and relaxed atmosphere in the home. One member of staff said “Everyone here is wonderful and I feel lucky to be able to spend time with them.” A relative said “It is a wonderful place and the staff are just great.” One person smiled and responded “Yes. I like [staff member’s name]. They are good.” When we asked if they liked the staff member who was supporting them.

People were treated with respect and their views were valued. For example in a satisfaction questionnaire one person had written that they wanted to have more activities outside of the home and this had been facilitated.

People were always asked for their consent before staff assisted them with any tasks and staff knew the procedures to follow to make sure people’s legal and human rights were protected.

People were involved in developing and reviewing the care they received. Each person had a care plan which detailed their needs, abilities and preferences. These had been regularly reviewed with each person to make sure the plan of care reflected their needs and aspirations.

People accessed various activities in the home and local community. People were supported to maintain contact with the important people in their lives. A relative told us staff helped their relative to have weekly face to face internet contact with them.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service people received.