The service was inspected on 8 and 10 February 2017. The first day of our inspection visit was unannounced. We visited the provider’s office on 14 February 2017 to review staff training and recruitment processes.

The service provides accommodation and personal care support to two people.

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.

At a comprehensive inspection in December 2015 the overall rating for this service was rated Requires Improvement with one breach of Regulation relating to people’s consent identified. We asked the provider to make improvements. At this inspection we saw that the provider had made the required improvements.

Staff were aware of their responsibility to keep people safe. People received their medicines as required. Medicines were administered safely by staff who were appropriately trained and competent to do so.

Risks were assessed and managed to protect people from harm and staff understood what to do in emergency situations.

Staff had received training and supervision to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff told us that they felt supported and that communication between themselves and senior staff was good. Safe recruitment practices were being followed.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and met. People’s health needs were met and when necessary, outside health professionals were contacted for support.

People made decisions about their care and the support they received. People were involved in reviewing their care and their opinions sought and respected. People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were involved in the planning and implementation of the care that was provided. People’s independence was promoted and people were encouraged to make choices. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People were supported to practice their religion as they wished.

The care needs of people had been assessed. Staff had a clear understanding of their role and how to support people who used the service. People contributed to the reviewing of their care. Their feedback was sought.

People and staff felt that the registered manager was approachable and action would be taken to address any concerns they may have. People and staff were kept informed of changes to the service and their feedback was sought.

There were a range of audit systems in place to measure the quality and care delivered so that improvements could be made. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities.

We inspected the service on 17 and 18 December 2015. It was an unannounced inspection.

Freedom Care Limited – 68 Conway drive provides accommodation for 2 people. Both were present on the day of our inspection.

There was 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.

People told us that they felt safe and well supported. Staff understood how to keep people safe and were able to report concerns if required.

Risks associated with daily living were assessed and staff received guidance on how to minimise risks. The environment was homely and well maintained but some health and safety checks had not been consistently carried out. Fire safety checks were carried out and there were procedures in place for staff to follow however recommendations from the fire department had not been followed up.

The service did not always follow safe recruitment practice. We saw that there were occasions when the relevant pre-employment checks had not been carried out.

People’s independence was promoted and choice making encouraged. People remained part of the wider community if they wished to and links with people important to them were maintained.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their care. They were involved and their opinions sought. Staff were able to demonstrate that they had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how it might apply to the people who used the service

People using the service were not always asked for their consent. CCTV had been installed in the home without due consultation or regard for the wishes and preferences of people using the service. This was an intrusion of people’s privacy and .a breach of regulation. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. When people had refused to consent to the use of CCTV the provider had not responded accordingly.

Staff received training and support to be able to meet the needs of people using the service although training records were not always kept up to date. The manager and staff team were clear of their role in ensuring best interest decisions were made for people if required. Staff had a clear understanding of their role and how to support people who use the service as individuals.

Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and compassion. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. They received their regular medicines as prescribed and had access to health professionals as required.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager. People who used the service felt they could talk to the manager and had faith that they would address issues if required. The provider had sought the opinions of family members and staff and acted upon their findings, however they had not done so when installing CCTV in the service.

People were involved in the planning and reviewing of the care that they received. Their achievements were celebrated and outcomes were positive. People were supported to engage in activities that were meaningful to them and that they enjoyed.

There were not always appropriate systems in place to monitor activities and to learn from mistakes. Where shortfall had been identified these had not always been acted upon in a timely manner.

We spoke with two people who use the service. We also spoke to four staff members.

We found people were able to make informed decisions about their care and support. One person told us “this is the best place I have ever been in. I am always given a choice. The staff help me. It is nice to have staff accompany me.”

We found people experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We found people’s care needs had been assessed. Care and support was delivered in a way that met people’s needs and ensured their safety and welfare.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We found the provider had robust systems in place relating to the management of medicines.

Staff were supported in their work and were confident that they were able to provide the care required.

We found systems were in place to regularly obtain people's views about the care and service they receive. We found the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.

We spoke with both people using the service and they told us they were supported to make choices and maintain their independence as much as they were able. One person told us that staff supported them to do things they enjoyed such as attending a drama group and going to college. The other person told us staff understood their needs and were able to offer support and advice when they felt anxious.

Both people we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support that had been provided. Comments included: - “I have a positive relationship with staff” and” the help’s there when you need it”.

We found that care plans were detailed and thorough and provided clear guidance to staff about how people’s care and support should be delivered. However, records did not contain sufficient information about when physical intervention or restraint techniques should be used by staff.

Staff were aware of the appropriate reporting processes should an allegation of abuse be raised, ensuring people were protected at all times. However, the provider may find it useful to note that it does not have a policy regarding the use of restraint.

We found there was limited evidence that the manager and provider were assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided to ensure people were protected from the risk of inappropriate or unsafe care.

The people using the service told us that they liked living in the house. They told us that they enjoyed being involved in everyday activities at the home and that they felt well supported.