This inspection took place on 2 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Godfrey Robinson - Care Home Physical Disabilities is care home in a residential area of North Ferriby. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation and care to 19 people with physical disabilities. The home provides support to younger adults aged between 18 and 65 years and older people.

At our last inspection in October 2015, we rated the service overall good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the overall 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.

Medicines were managed safely and staff had a good knowledge of the medicine systems and procedures in place to support this. We found staff had been recruited safely and training was provided to meet the needs of people. Staff received supervision and annual appraisals.

Staff received training on safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm. Accidents and incidents were responded to appropriately and monitored by the management team. The service was clean and infection control measures were in place.

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 supported this practice.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were catered for. We made a recommendation about the meal time experience.

There was a positive caring culture within the service and we observed people were treated with dignity and respect. People’s wider support needs were not always met through the provision of activities.

There was a complaints policy and procedure made available to people who received a service and their relatives. Feedback was sought from people and their relatives and this was positive.

There was a range of quality audits in place completed by the management team. These were up-to-date and completed on a regular basis. Staff told us they felt recent concerns regarding staff team morale were improving. The registered manager was supported by the wider organisation to address staffing issues and ensure there was no impact on people receiving a service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We saw that people were asked for their consent before being given any support and were involved in developing and agreeing to their planned care. Three people who spoke with us said they were satisfied with the service and one person told us “I am part of the Customer Action Network group (CAN). I attend the network meetings and take any concerns people might have about the service to the meetings. We discuss the issues and work on finding solutions to the problems.”

We found people were being looked after by friendly, supportive staff within a warm and homely environment. Care was personalised and reflected people’s choices and decisions. People told us that the staff encouraged them to be independent but were available for support when needed. Two relatives told us “We think the care is first class. The staff are great at keeping us informed about X’s wellbeing and we are made to feel welcome every time we visit.”

The home was designed to meet the needs of people who lived there and the provider ensured the environment was regularly maintained, safe and fit for purpose. People told us they could access all areas within the service and one person said “I use a wheelchair all the time and I have no problems getting from my bedroom into the bathrooms and lounges.”

Robust employment and recruitment practices were in place which ensured that staff had the skills, experience and qualifications for the work to be performed.

The provider had an effective quality assurance system in place and people’s views and opinions of the service were listened to and acted on where necessary.

People told us that the staff respected their wishes and choices. They said that staff were polite and knocked on thier door prior to entering.

People told us that staff were "Good" and knew their jobs. Also that people felt safe within the home and able to raise any concerns that they might have.

The inspection of Godfrey Robinson took place on 2 and 22 October 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 15 January 2014 the service met all of the regulations we assessed.

Godfrey Robinson is a residential care home that provides accommodation and support to a maximum of 19 adults aged between 18 and 65 years, who have a physical disability. When people reach the age of 65 they can remain at the service if their assessment identifies that the service continues to meet their care and treatment needs. There were 19 people using the service at the time of our inspection.  The service is situated in the village of North Ferriby in East Yorkshire and has bus and rail links to the cities of Kingston Upon Hull, Leeds and beyond.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection 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.

We found that people were approached by staff that were very kind and caring, and with a positive and progressive outlook on life. This encouraged people to be the same and to enjoy their lives to the full. We were given lots of examples where people had been enabled to lead the lives of their choosing, thus fulfilling their ambitions and aims, and staff had been extremely supportive and caring towards people in enabling them to do this. People spoke very highly of the care and support they received and one relative wrote to the organisation with a detailed and touching account of the care and compassion their relative received while in the care of staff at Godfrey Robinson. We found that people were treated as individuals and with the greatest respect by staff when they provided support, as this was always carried out in partnership with them and according to their expressed preferences.

People were able to speak up freely about the service of care they received and they contributed to the running of the service by making their wishes and views known on a daily basis to their key workers and by running and chairing the ‘resident’ meetings in rotation, so that they had full say in what happened in the service. People’s privacy and dignity was upheld extremely well at all times and they experienced a sense that the service was created and tailored by them; such was the enabling abilities of the staff. People’s personal details were kept confidential.

People that used the service had key workers to support them in doing that little bit extra, key workers who really got to know people well. There were person-centred plans of care in place, which addressed not only care and health needs, but also needs of achieving ambition and leading a fulfilling life. This area of support was seen by staff as very important in enabling people to experience the best possible things in life. People expressed their complete satisfaction with the very responsive service of care and support they received.

People were fully supported by receptive staff to begin and maintain relationships of their choice and were enabled to access advice on issues of importance in respect of those relationships.

We found that people engaged in activities, always of their choosing and on a regular basis so that they led busy and active lives. We saw that all difficult activities were realised by tenacious staff going that ‘extra mile’ to ensure people experienced the right kind of opportunity. These were always supported by detailed and very pertinent risk assessments.

People could complain with complete confidence that their issues would be satisfactorily addressed and in the knowledge that there would be no recriminations for speaking up; making suggestions or saying any aspect of their care wasn’t good enough. However, people stressed to us that they had absolutely no cause for complaint as the service was very good and all their needs were responded to extremely well.

People that used the service at Godfrey Robinson Care Home were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had ensured staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and there were systems in place to handle safeguarding referrals appropriately. Anti-discrimination and people’s rights were vigorously upheld by everyone that used and worked at the service. We found that staff and volunteers ‘lived’ the beliefs of the organisation in their support to people that used the service, with regard to people having freedom to live their lives the way they choose.

We found that people were safe because whistle blowing was appropriately addressed and investigated and staff understood their responsibilities to address concerns. All risks for people were identified and reduced by use of risk assessments carried out by people themselves and staff, as part of their general care planning and reviewing. Staff went to enormous lengths to ensure people were able to achieve their goals and ambitions and reduced risk greatly in the process.

We saw that staffing levels were in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs and that staff went ‘above and beyond’ in providing extra support after working hours, to ensure people received the care they required in times of difficulty or when in hospital and relatives were unable to be there. We saw that staff and volunteer recruitment practices followed the same safe policies and procedures. The management of medicines also followed safe policies, procedures and practices.

People were supported by competent and trained staff that showed a thirst for knowledge and were committed to their personal development and acquiring improved skills. Staff were inducted to their roles and were well supported by the manager who ensured staff were formally supervised and took part in an appraisal and reward system. All learning undertaken by staff was eagerly put into practice.

There were appropriate legislation safeguards in place for people that may not have had the capacity to make specific important decisions about their lives or the care and support they received and every effort was made to ensure people’s human rights were fully exercised.

We found that people’s nutrition and health care needs were met, because these had been assessed and planned for and staff were aware of the issues and support needs that people had. Staff looked for ways to provide people with the best possible nutrition, but of course respected their personal preferences, choices and decisions.

We saw that people experienced suitable premises that were adapted and fitted with specialist equipment to meet their needs. The plans in place to complete the refurbishment in operation at the time we visited promised to ensure the facilities for people would be of the most modern and appropriate for meeting the needs of people living with a physical disability. The registered manager sent pictures to us of an upgraded bathroom before we completed our inspection report and this showed that improvements were of a very high standard.

We found that people enjoyed the benefit of a service that followed a positive culture, because staff were well aware of the right thing to do in carrying out their responsibilities and genuinely enabled people to lead their own lives.  The service was very well run and was regularly checked for quality with regard to the service delivery.  Surveying of people’s satisfaction was all carried out externally to the organisation, while internal audits were overseen regionally.  The registered manager was open, honest and inclusive and genuinely valued everyone’s views: people that used the service, relatives, staff and other healthcare professionals.  People’s information details and all other records held in the service were securely held and kept confidential.