Heathercroft is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal support for up to five people with learning disabilities. The home is situated in a quiet residential street and has all ordinary homely amenities, including a garden.

This unannounced inspection took place on 22 May 2017. At the previous inspection in November 2014 we found the service to be meeting required standards and the overall rating was "Good".

The home 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was present on duty for the inspection.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe at the service and knew how to raise any concerns. Staff knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse and followed the right reporting procedures. People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and support to care for people safely and protect their human rights. The service had procedures in place whereby they assessed and identified risks to people’s health and safety. There were sufficient staff numbers to meet people’s needs and staff were employed after suitable checks had been made.

The service had systems in place for the safe storage, administration and recording of medicines. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection through the implementation of the home’s policies and procedures.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and support to do their job well. The service had an induction period for new staff and all staff had completed mandatory training. Staff felt supported by managers and people felt confident in the ability of staff to meet their needs.

Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) that ensured people’s rights were protected. Staff ensured that people’s consent was sought before providing care and acted in people’s best interests where people lacked the capacity to make informed decisions.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet and people’s preferences and dietary needs were being met. People made positive comments about the food at the service and staff were attentive and supportive to people during mealtimes.

People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive on-going healthcare support. There were strong links with GP and other external health professionals and people’s care records contained accurate details of their health needs.

The design and layout of the home ensured that people could have access to all areas, including gardens, and receive visitors.

The staff and manager developed positive, caring relationships with people using the service through talking and listening to people in a way that people understood. Care records focused on people as individuals and gave clear information for staff. People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the caring attitude of staff and the quality of care they received.

The service supported people to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. Care records were written in a way people could understand and people and their families were involved in discussions about how staff should care for them.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted through the service’s policies and procedures, staff training and practice. People told us they felt respected and we saw how people’s privacy and dignity were respected when they were receiving care or talking with staff.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.

We used the SOFI observation tool to help us understand the experiences of the people who used the service because not everyone who lived at Heathercroft could talk with us. During our inspection we met all four people who currently lived at the care home and spoke at length to two of them. They both told us they were happy living at Heathercroft and that the staff who worked there were kind and caring. One person we met said “it’s good living here. The staff are really nice”. Another individual told us “I sometimes go out with the staff. There’s always lots going on here. I never get bored”.

We saw the people who used the service were well supported by the staff who treated everyone with respect and dignity. We also found staff were suitably trained and supported to effectively meet the needs and wishes of the people who lived at Heathercroft.

However, although people receiving services in the home were happy and well supported by staff; the provider may wish to note that some parts of the home's interior had not been adequately maintained.

The provider did have effective systems in place to routinely assess and monitor the quality of the service people who lived at Heathercroft received.

Heathercroft is a residential care home, providing accommodation and personal care for up to five people with learning disabilities. Heathercroft has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

At our previous inspection in April 2013, we found the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected.

Some people were able to tell us directly what their views were of the service, whilst others used other forms of communication such as sign language, gestures and other responses to questions. Everyone we spoke with told us or otherwise indicated that they felt safe using the service. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and the service had policies and procedures in place to ensure that the service responded appropriately to allegations or suspicions of abuse. The service ensured that people’s human rights were respected and took action to assess and minimise risks to people. Staff had received training on behaviour that may challenge and the service consulted with other professionals about managing aspects of behaviour safely.

All of the people we spoke with either told us or indicated that they thought that staff were friendly and helpful. Throughout our inspection we observed that staff were caring and attentive to people. Staff approached people with dignity and respect and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs. Staff were quick to respond when people needed support.

There were enough qualified and skilled staff at the service. Staffing numbers and shifts were managed to suit people's needs so that people received their care when they needed and wanted it. Staff had access to information, support and training that they needed to do their jobs well. The provider’s training programme was designed to meet the needs of people using the service so that staff had the knowledge they required to care for people effectively.

People were provided with a range of activities in and outside the service which met their individual needs and interests. People were encouraged to build and develop their independent living skills both in the service and in the community.

Care plans contained information about the health and social care support people needed and records showed they were supported to access other professionals when required. People were involved in making decisions about their care. Where people's needs changed, the provider responded and reviewed the care provided.

People using the service and staff told us they found the manager to be approachable and accessible. We observed an open and inclusive atmosphere in the service and the manager led by example. Staff were happy working for the service and motivated to provide person centred care.

The provider had a number of audits and quality assurance programmes in place. These included action plans so the provider could monitor whether necessary changes were made and ensure high standards were being maintained.

The service had effective procedures for reporting and investigating incidents and accidents. There were systems to learn from incidents and adverse events and protect people from the risks of similar events happening again.