Heathcotes (Glenfield), is a care home for a maximum of six younger people with learning disabilities and autism. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service is a detached house with garden. All bedrooms are single rooms with en-suite facilities. At the time of our inspection six people lived in the home.

The service was registered with the CQC prior to the CQC’s publication of ‘Registering the Right Support’ guidance for homes for people with learning disabilities and autism. However, the service provided at Heathcotes (Glenfield), was in-line with best practice identified in our publication.

At our last inspection we rated the service as ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing 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. Six people lived at the home at the time of our inspection visit.

The service continued to be safe. Staff understood the risks to people’s health and wellbeing and took action to lessen each risk. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs; and checks had been made on staff before working for the service to make sure they were safe to work with people. People received their medicines as prescribed. The home was clean and tidy and staff understood infection control practice. Premises were well-maintained.

The service continued to be effective. Staff received training to support them work effectively with people who lived at the home. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People had access to different health and social care professionals when required, and good relationships had been formed between the service and those professionals. People received food they enjoyed, and were involved in menu planning.

The service continued to be caring. People received care from staff who were kind, treated them with dignity, and respected their privacy. Staff had developed positive relationships with the people they supported, they understood people’s needs, preferences, and what was important to them. The service supported people to maintain and develop relationships with their family.

The service continued to be responsive. People’s needs were assessed and planned for with the involvement of the person. Care plans were very informative and helped staff understand the complexities of people’s care and support needs. People had opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies, and social activities were offered. There was a complaint procedure although no complaints had been made to the service since our last inspection. The provider worked to support people when they were near the end of their life.

The service continued to be well-led. The provider and registered manager worked hard to ensure a good quality of service was maintained. The registered manager provided good support to the staff group, and to people who lived at the home. Checks were made to ensure the service met its obligations to provide safe accommodation to people and to deliver care and support which met people’s individual needs.

We carried out our inspection on 25 and 26 May 2016. The inspection was unannounced on the first day. We returned announced on the second day.

The service provided accommodation for up to six people living with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had 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 felt safe at Heathcotes Glenfield. Staff understood and applied the provider’s policies and procedures to guide them on their responsibilities to keep people safe and to report any concerns they had regarding people’s safety.

There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their individual needs. The provider had a safe recruitment process to ensure that they employed staff who had the right skills and experience, and as far as possible were suited to supporting the people who use the service.

People received their medicines as prescribed. The provider had effective protocols for their safe management.

Staff had access to effective induction and training that equipped them with the skills they required to meet people’s needs.

People were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty. Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and treatment. They supported people in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People nutritional needs were met. Staff provided the support people required to have timely access to health care services when they needed to.

Staff supported people in a caring and compassionate manner. They treated people with dignity and respect. They were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported and ensured that they were involved in decisions about their care where possible.

People’s care plans reflected their individual needs. Their care was provided in a person centred manner.

People had access to a variety of meaningful activities. They were supported to be part of the community.

The provider listened to feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff and they acted on it.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager. They had easy access to the registered manager when they required guidance. The provider had effective procedures for monitoring and assessing the quality of service that people received.

People using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We made contact with the relatives of one of the people who used the service and asked them for their views on the service provided. We did try to contact other relatives but were unsuccessful in this.

Documents relating to the care and support people received contained detailed information about their preferred routines, likes, dislikes and specific needs. There was also information to explain how staff could communicate with people most effectively and we observed this in practice.

People were offered choices in relation to their food and drink. The provider had not completed any formal nutritional assessments to consider whether there were any specific risks associated with peoples’ weight and diet.

Staff understood the potential risks to the safety and wellbeing of the people they supported and were clear that they would take action if they had any concerns about this.

There were a variety of communal spaces available to people and, overall, the home was clean, tidy and well maintained. Staff confirmed that any maintenance work was dealt with promptly.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to provide the support people needed.

Information was available to explain how people could make complaints and opportunities to raise any concerns or complaints, if necessary.

We looked at how consent was obtained from people using the service, plans showed that people using the service were supported to be involved in their care. Staff were able to tell us how they obtained people's permission and involvement in their care.

We looked at support plans and these showed that people were assessed and plans were created to meet their needs in a way that maintained their safety. Staff told us that they were involved in maintaining plans and keeping them up to date.

People using the service were safeguarded from abuse by a staff group who understood their responsibilities and a manager who looked at ways of minimise risks for people using the service. We spoke with one person using the service and they told us they felt safe.

Medication records and storage were looked at and we saw that this was done in a thorough manner ensuring that people using the service were safe from risks associated with poor management of medication. Staff told us that only people who were trained and competent could administer medication.

We looked at recruitment procedures and saw that in some areas they were not robust enough to ensure that where a risk may be highlighted action was taken to minimise the risk. We discussed the issues with the manager who acknowledged the problem.

Records looked at during the inspection were up to date and fit for purpose ensuring that staff were able to do their job and people using the service were protected from risk.

Most people who used the service had limited verbal communication skills so we were only able to speak with one person. He told us:

“I want to stay here. I like the people here, carers and the people that live here.”

“I’ve seen my care plan and I have taken part in reviews of my care plan.”

“This home is a really nice home. I feel brilliant here.”

“I like rugby. Carers have taken me to watch Leicester Tigers.”