The inspection took place on 16 June 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 16 June 2015, the service was found to be meeting the required standards in the areas we looked at. Ganwick House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people. The service supports people who may have a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or mental health problems. At the time of our inspection six people lived at the home.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Safe and effective recruitment practices were not consistently followed to help ensure that all staff were suitably qualified and experienced. Arrangements were in place to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available at all times to meet people’s individual needs.

Trained staff helped people to take their medicines at the right time. Identified and potential risks to people’s health and well-being were reviewed. However audits had not identified a medicine error that had occurred.

People felt safe, happy and well looked after at the home. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report concerns, both internally and externally

Staff obtained people’s consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way.

Plans and guidance had been drawn up to help staff deal with unforeseen events and emergencies. The environment and equipment used were regularly checked and well maintained to keep people safe.

People were supported by staff that were sufficiently trained and felt supported. The service worked in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People received a varied and balanced diet and had regular access to health and social care professionals.

People were treated with dignity and respect. People were involved in planning their care and their choices and preferences were promoted. Records were stored securely.

People received care that met their needs and their care plans were detailed and person centred. Activities and opportunities for engagement were provided. People knew how to make a complaint but there had not been any recent complaints.

People, their relatives and staff were positive about the management team. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

This inspection took place on 16 June 2015 and was unannounced.

Ganwick House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people. The service supports people who may have a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or mental health issues. There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The provider used safe recruitment practices. Staff had inductions and were supported by colleagues whilst developing skills. Supervisions and appraisals were completed and staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse.

Staff received regular training and knew how to meet people’s individual needs. Any changes in people’s needs were communicated to all staff when they started their shifts.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff also understood the importance of giving people as much choice and freedom as possible. The manager had made appropriate applications for DoLS in order to keep people safe. Staff gained consent from people whenever they could and where people lacked capacity we saw that arrangements were in place for staff to act in their best interests.

People had appropriate food and drink and staff had access to accurate and up to date information to help them meet people’s dietary needs. There was enough staff to assist people who required support during meal times.

There were planned weekly activities and people were supported to be independent where possible.

Staff were kind and people appreciated the positive relationships they had with staff. This was also true for relatives. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and all confidential information about them was held securely. People told us they were happy living at the home.

People’s care plans were personalised and included information about their life history and interests. People’s individual needs were assessed and staff were knowledgeable about how to meet people’s specific needs.

The service was well led by a manager who promoted a fair and open culture. They encouraged staff to take responsibility. The manager had a support structure in place from other managers. There was a management system in place to help them monitor the quality of the service.

During our visit we were able to communicate with people living in the home who confirmed that they felt safe and enjoyed living at the home. Many had been living at the home for a number of years and considered other people as family.

We observed that people were relaxed in the home and were able to pursue their own interests through their own personal planned activity programmes. People were able to attend the day centre located behind the main house where they enjoyed activities such as playing the keyboard, playing computer games, making puzzles and building with plastic bricks. People attended college throughout the week to pursue specific interests such as music recording , art and drama.

We identified positive interaction between staff and people who encouraged and supported people to help with the day to day running of the house such as cleaning the rooms, laundry and going to the supermarket to buy the food for the home.

We identified that there were appropriate systems in place to provide care to each person's individual needs in a way that people maintained their independence.

We observed a clean and well maintained environment with bright modern furnishings. People were able to personalise their own rooms with items of interest, importance and memory.

All staff had received appropriate training required to provide safe and effective support.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because some people had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us about their experiences. We observed the interaction between people using the service and the staff present during our visit and reviewed three sets of care records with the individual’s key worker. During the day we had contact with six of the people who live at Ganwick House.

We observed that there was a relaxed, calm atmosphere throughout the time of our visit. People were following their planned activity programmes with staff as well as being encouraged to follow their own interests. Some people had gone out for a drive, one person was engrossed in a drawing they were doing and another person had been spending time with their key worker developing their keyboard skills. People indicated they were busy and we saw photographs of people participating in the various activities and groups provided.

People indicated they were happy with the arrangements for them at Ganwick House and showed us how they were involved in looking after their rooms and managing their own laundry. People were being involved in the daily activities of setting tables and loading the dishwasher.

We observed that people had been provided with bright modern furnishings and had been able to personalise their rooms with many items of interest, importance and memory. This demonstrated that despite the challenges faced by some people they were able to live in a dignified environment that they were taking care of.