This inspection took place on 19 June 2017 and was unannounced.

Halifax Drive provides care and support for up to 33 adults with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders, and/or a mental health needs. All bedrooms are single and one has ensuite facilities. The premises are divided into four units, Ash Lodge, Beech Lodge, Cedar Lodge, and the Bungalow. There are a range of communal areas including lounges, dining rooms, and gardens.

At the time of this inspection there were 32 people using the service.

The service has a registered manager. This 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 made many positive comments about the service and also told us how good they thought the registered manager was. The culture of the home was open, friendly and welcoming. People and staff were keen to talk with us and share their experiences of the service which were all positive.

People and staff had relationships of mutual respect and consideration. People were able to make choices and mistakes and were well supported with both. The staff had a good understanding of the challenges some people faced due to their mental health needs and learning disabilities and supported them to overcome these and live independent and fulfilling lives.

People told us about the different ways living at Halifax Drive made them feel safe. They said they felt the premises were secure, as were their money and possessions. They also said they trusted the registered manager and staff and this made them feel safe too.

There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs and support them to remain safe both at the service and went they went out. We saw people got on well with the staff. Medicines were safely managed and people told us they received them when they needed them.

All the staff we met were knowledgeable about the people using the service and were trained to carry out their roles effectively. We saw staff use good interpersonal skills when supporting people to take part in activities. Staff continually encouraged people to be independent and to make informed decision about their daily lives.

It was a warm day when we inspected and people were offered drinks, ice creams and frozen lollies to ensure they were hydrated. We saw people going into the kitchen and helping themselves to drinks and snacks when they wanted to, and staff offered to bring drinks and snacks to those who were less mobile. People told us they liked the food provided at the service. Some people had individual diets due to their cultural or health requirements so staff provided halal, diabetic and other diets to meet people’s needs and preferences.

People told us the registered manager and staff were caring and they got on well with them.

Staff also communicated well with people and supported them with their personal relationships and friendships. There were no taboo subjects and the registered manager told us all staff at the service were non-judgemental and supported people in the way that an enlightened family member would.

Some people chose to show us their rooms which they were proud of. They said staff always knocked on the door and waited for permission before entering which helped to protect their privacy.

People told us staff supported them in the way that they wanted and they could make choices about all aspects of their lives. Staff at the service encouraged people to be as independent as possible. Since our last inspection eight people had moved on from Halifax Drive to supported living. Several of these people continued to visit Halifax Drive for coffee/tea and a chat. This showed that people had a positive view of the service and regarded it as source of stability in their li

This inspection took place on 2 February 2015 and was unannounced.

Halifax Drive provides care and support for up to 33 adults with a learning disability, an autistic spectrum disorder, or a mental health need. The home has 33 bedrooms one of which has ensuite facilities. The home is divided into three units, Ash Lodge, Beech Lodge, and Cedar Lodge, over two floors. There are five lounges and three dining rooms.

At the time of this inspection there were 29 people using the service.

The home has a registered manager. This 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 safe and comfortable in the home. They were happy to approach staff for support, speak out, and give their opinions. The home had an open culture and people shared their views about the service willingly.

Staff were trained in safeguarding (protecting people who use care services from abuse) and knew what to do if they were concerned about the welfare of any of the people who used the service.

There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff had the time they needed to support people safely. If people needed assistance this was provided promptly and at no time were people left unsupported. Some people had one-to-one staffing at certain times of the day to meet their particular needs.

Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and knew their likes, dislikes, and how they preferred to be supported. They were knowledgeable about how to protect the rights of people who were not always able to make or communicate their own decisions.

There was a choice of dishes at each meal. Some people liked to have their meals out in the community and were supported to do this. People’s nutritional needs were in need of review to ensure they were being met

People had access to a range of health care professionals including GPs, mental health practitioners, district nurses, chiropodists, opticians, and dentists. If staff were concerned about people’s health they referred them to the appropriate health care services and accompanied them to appointments.

Staff were caring in their approach and had a good understanding of people’s needs and how best to approach them. They took their time to listen to people and it was evident they had built up genuine and supportive relationships with the people who used the service.

We saw examples of staff going out of their way to assist people who faced particular challenges in their lives. We found that people trusted the staff looking after them, and that staff supported people and used a range of resources to provide comfort and reassurance.

If people were at risk due to certain lifestyle choices staff addressed this in a caring and positive way, and took action to maximise their safety.

People were involved in planning their own support programmes and had regular meetings with staff to review their support and comment on it. Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity, protect their human rights, and provide care that met their needs.

When we inspected some people were taking part in activities of their choice but others were unoccupied. Improvements were needed to people’s plans of care for activities as they did not show how people could be supported to do the activities they wanted.

If people wanted to raise concerns about the service staff assisted them to do this. People had access to a visiting advocate and a visiting befriender who could provide support.

People contributed to the running of the service and changes and improvements had been made in response to their feedback. The registered manager worked alongside staff ’ and the people who used the service knew who she was and were happy to approach her.

All aspects of the service were monitored and checked on a regular basis. Some minor improvements were needed to the way the premises were checked so that actions could be taken to address any issues.

We spoke with three people who used the service who told us they were happy with the support they received. One person told us they received funding for one to one support and for these hours they received the support of a member of staff who supported them in taking part in activities of their choice. The person told us that on the day of our visit they were going Christmas shopping with a member of staff. A second person told us that they regularly went out in the community visiting the local shops and buying groceries and that they helped with the preparation and cooking of meals. During our visit people were supported to access facilities within the community, some people in small groups others with the support of one member of staff.

We found support plans and others records had improved since we last visited the service earlier in the year. We found the providers’ assessment process identified and reassessed people’s needs and that the support and care people received was as detailed within their records.

We spoke with six people and asked them for their views about the service they received. People told us: “The new manager has changed a lot of things we now do our own cooking in our unit.” “I’m happy living here and I think all the staff are lovely.” “I’m happy living here I have lots of friends.” People told us about their keyworkers who supported them within the service and with going out into the community. People we spoke with told us they had monthly meetings with their keyworker to talk about things which were important to them.

People we spoke with knew who to contact if they were unhappy or were concerned about their care and support. One person said: “I know about whistleblowing, I’d go to the board with the phone numbers on it and use my phone to make a call.” Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities in keeping people who use the service safe.

We found evidence of poor record keeping and improvements are needed. We found the provider’s assessment process to identify and reassess people’s needs was not implemented. Records detailing the care, support and welfare of people were not regularly reviewed, dated or signed. A number of documents within people’s records had not been completed.

We spoke with four people who used the service and observed people being supported by care staff. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and support, which included contact with external agencies. People told us staff supported them to make decisions about their day to day lives as well as long term plans for their future.

People told us they accessed services within the local community independently or with staff support, which for some people included one to one support. Records detailed the support provided by care staff.

People’s records detailed the care and support individuals required and included the role of staff in providing support. Care and support plans covered a range of topics and included the management of people’s behaviour should it become challenging and the support and monitoring of people’s health.

Records showed staff had received training relevant to the needs of people using the service and that staff were supported through regular meetings and supervision.

The service had an effective quality assurance system which provided people using the service to comment on the service they receive through the completing of surveys and attendance at internal and external meetings.

People told us they attended resident meetings where they talked about general issues to do with Halifax Drive, which had included décor, activities and menu planning. People told us they attended monthly meetings with their keyworker to review their care plan and talk about any issues which affected them and impacted on their wellbeing. People who used the service were aware of their rights and were supported to make informed decisions about their daily lives and long term plans.

People living at Halifax Drive were supported to access a range of community resources which included paid and voluntary work, college courses and day centre activities. People had also accessed recreational and social activities that had included attending discos, social clubs and maintaining contact with friends and relatives.