Fullerton House College is a specialist residential college offering year round education and care for up to 12 young people aged 19 to 25 years old. The service provides support for people with complex needs including behaviour that may challenge and a learning disability, often in association with autism. Since the last inspection the accommodation arrangements have changed and people now live in one of four three bedroom flats in ‘The Limes’ building, which is part of the college site. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting seven people.

At our last inspection in November 2015 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People received inclusive, caring and mindful support from staff who knew them well and whose main aim was to support people to have the kind of life they wanted, while keeping them as safe as possible.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should any concerns be raised. Potential risks to people's safety were clearly identified and reflected in their support plans. Incidents and accidents were monitored and action was taken to reduce risks to people. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Environmental risks were assessed and managed appropriately, but some areas of the service required redecoration or repair. These had been identified by the registered manager and action was being taken to address them.

A thorough recruitment procedure helped to make sure the correct staff were employed to support people. There were enough staff on shift to ensure that people had their needs met in a timely manner and could take part in community activities. Staff received the training and support they needed to meet people's needs and develop their skills and knowledge.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Staff monitored people's health and welfare needs and people had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed.

People were fully involved in planning the support they needed and how they spent their day. This included menus and shopping for their chosen meals, which were prepared in their flat either by themselves or with assistance from staff. Support files provided clear guidance to staff on people’s needs and their daily routines and preferences.

Staff knew people well and were aware of their history and preferences. Their privacy was respected and they were treated with dignity, kindness and compassion. People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.

Staff spoke with passion and commitment about supporting people to develop their skills and meet their full potential. We found they had worked consistently to help individual people get over their fears and develop new skills and abilities.

People accessed social activities and education which was tailored to their individual needs and interests. They spoke positively about the activities and social events they took part in and about how they had been supported to develop their confidence, skills and knowledge.

There were systems in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and raise concerns if necessary, which were listened to. The registered manager and care team demonstrated a commitment to continually improve the service and used lessons learned to take the service forward. We also saw audits and checks were regularly undertaken to make sure company policies had been followed and the

The inspection took place on 19 November 2015 and it was unannounced. This means that on the first day the registered provider did not know we were going to carry out the inspection. At the time of our inspection, there were two people using the service.

Fullerton House College is a specialist residential college, offering education and care for up to 52 weeks per year, for young people aged 19 and above. The service provides support for young people with complex needs including behaviour that may challenge and a learning disability, often in association with autism. Each person had their own small house, with a garden.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Although the registered manager was relatively new in post, they had worked for the Hesley Group for 17 years and was familiar with the needs and preferences of the people who used the service.

We saw the staff were friendly and kind and people who used the service were relaxed in their company. They understood people’s needs and treated them with respect. We saw that, in addition to attending college people participated in a range of activities, which were based on their interests, were meaningful and promoted their independence. This was within the service and, out in the community.

People who used the service indicated that they felt safe. People’s plans included areas of risk and reflected the risks, and the changes in their lifestyles and needs as they have developed towards adulthood. People’s medicines were well managed and records were accurately maintained.

People’s files included assessments and plans of care and support, and were individualised. The staff we spoke with were very knowledgeable about the people who used the service, could clearly describe their history and preferences and were aware of how to support people.

We found the service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.

The service had arrangements in place for recruiting staff safely and there were sufficient staff available to provide people with one to one staffing, to respond to people’s individual needs and to keep people safe. Staff were provided with regular supervision and appraisal for development and support

People had access to a range of health care services to help maintain their health. It was clear that people were supported to buy and cook things they liked, and people told us they enjoyed the meals.

People told us they could speak with staff if they had any complaints, or concerns and they would be listened to.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure procedures to maintain safe practice were adhered to. Incidents were assessed and monitored to try to prevent and reduce potential recurrences or similar incidents.

People and their relatives were asked their opinion of the quality of the service and their feedback used to help improve the service.