We inspected Healey Supported Living Service on 07 August 2017. The inspection was unannounced; this meant the service did not know we were coming. The service was registered in 2015 and this was the first inspection.

The service consists of a block of eight purpose built flats over three floors in a building staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Each person’s flat was self-contained with one bedroom. On the ground floor there was a communal lounge and kitchen area people used to socialise in with each other. At the rear of the building was an enclosed garden area with a lawn and seating area which overlooked the local cemetery.

People using the service had chosen the name Hilltop View for the building and this is how it was known to them, their relatives and staff. At the time of this inspection there were seven people living at Hilltop View, but only three were being supported with their personal care.

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

People told us they felt safe and relatives agreed. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risk to people had been assessed and managed.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. The service had worked with community healthcare professionals to safely reduce the number of medicines one person took.

Staffing at the service was adequate and recruitment procedures were robust.

Staff told us, and records confirmed, support workers received the induction, training and ongoing support they needed to provide people with effective care.

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 had access to a range of healthcare professionals to help meet their wider health needs. The service supported people to make meals and provided information and education around healthy eating.

Relatives and healthcare professionals we spoke with told us staff at the service were caring. People we spoke with told us they were happy at Hilltop View and we found the atmosphere at the service was inclusive and homely.

People were directly involved in designing and reviewing their goal support plans and risk assessments. Quarterly review meetings were held and individuals decided who they wanted to attend.

The service focused on increasing people’s independence. It also raised awareness of equality and diversity issues, and ensured people had access to advocacy services when they needed them.

No formal complaints had been made about the service. Relatives told us they could feedback to the service at any time and any issues they had experienced in the past had been resolved.

People had been involved in developing an easy to read complaints leaflet. The service checked people had understood the complaints process.

People’s care files contained detailed person-centred information about how they wished to be supported. Communication passports and hospital passports were in place in case people needed to transition between services.

People allocated hours for activities as part of their care packages had access to a range of activity opportunities at the service and in the community.

Feedback about the registered manager was positive. Staff could describe the values of the service and records showed they were emphasised in staff induction, supervision sessions and at team meetings.

A range of audits were used to monitor the safety and quality of the service, of which the provider had oversight. People using other services run by the provider had undertaken an inspection and audit at Hilltop Vie