Gaywood Street is a care home providing support to up to five people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection five people were living in the service.

At our last inspection in May 2015 the service was rated as 'Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People continued to receive care safely. There were enough vetted and suitable staff available to deliver support safely. People’s risks were identified, assessed and mitigated. People received their medicines in line with the prescriber’s instructions and the home environment was routinely checked to ensure good hygiene and fire safety.

The support people received continued to be effective as a result of the supervision, support and training staff received. People were cared for in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People ate well and received the support they required to eat and drink safely. People had regular and timely access to healthcare services and professionals and people had a record of their health conditions available should they be admitted to hospital.

People told us they liked the registered manager and staff and said they were caring. People were supported to maintain important relationships and regularly met family and friends. Staff promoted people’s independence and dignity and respected people’s privacy.

The service continued to be responsive to people’s individual needs. People’s needs were assessed and staff had guidance in care records on meeting people’s needs in a person centred way. People choices and preferences were clearly documented. People were supported to participate in a range of activities and the service prevented people becoming socially isolated. People were encouraged to share their views about the service and were supported to complain when they were dissatisfied.

The service remained well-led. The registered manager was held in high regard by people and staff. The service had a relaxed atmosphere and staff told us they enjoyed working at the service. Robust quality assurance checks were in place and the provider worked with other organisations to ensure that people receive good quality care.

Gaywood Street is a home for up to five people with a learning disability who may have additional physical disabilities. When we visited there were three people living at the home. The inspection took place on 26 May 2015 and was unannounced.

The home was last inspected on 9 August 2013 and all the regulations were met at that visit.

The home has 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.’

People were protected because staff were knowledgeable in recognising signs of potential abuse. They knew the action to take to keep people safe and the reporting procedures to follow.

People received medicines when they were prescribed and staff had the correct information to administer medicines safely.

Recruitment procedures were safe and there were enough staff available to care for people. Staff had received appropriate training to enable them to meet people’s needs. Staff liaised with healthcare professionals to obtain advice about how to support people with their healthcare needs. Staff were implementing care practices that reflected the advice received.

People were assisted to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their individual needs and preferences. People were cared for in line with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were treated in a caring manner and with regard for their dignity and individuality. Staff were attentive to people’s non-verbal communication and provided care that took account of their individual needs and preferences. Specialist equipment was provided to meet people’s needs and allowed them to be as independent as possible.

There were systems to ensure the quality of the service provided was checked regularly and action was taken if necessary to ensure suitable standards of care.

We observed that staff treated people they were supporting with kindness and compassion and were responsive to their needs. The staff showed dedication and commitment towards the people in their care. They used their communication skills appropriately to engage with people who were unable to verbalise their wishes.

Up to date, individual support agreements were in place for people using the service which addressed their care and support needs and protected them from risks.

The service worked in partnership with other providers to ensure people's health, safety and welfare needs were met. We saw positive comments from health and social care professionals who visited the home. One person commented, “Well done to all the staff team at Gaywood Street for the level of care and compassion for clients.” Another said, “Excellent team work and consistent dedication.”

There were appropriate arrangements for the safe administration of medicines.

Staff received appropriate induction, professional development, supervision and appraisal.

There was a process for dealing with complaints and this was in an accessible format for people using the service.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We observed staff giving people care and saw the staff were polite, kind and caring and supported people in making choices about what they wanted to do. They listened carefully to them and showed patience in their dealings with them. We looked at complaints and compliments logs and saw that the comments were mostly positive. We looked at photographs of activities and outings in people’s care files which showed people enjoying themselves.

However, we found that the provider was unable to demonstrate that suitable arrangements were in place ensure that all staff are appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities by receiving appropriate supervision and appraisal. This may put people at risk.