We inspected Homefield College Limited – 37 Greedon Rise on 31 October 2017. The visit was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting.

Homefield College Limited – 37 Greedon Rise is located in Sileby, Leicestershire. The service provides accommodation for up to three people who have a learning disability or an autistic spectrum disorder. There was one person using the service at the time of our inspection. At the last inspection in October 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

At our last inspection in October 2015, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements with regard to supporting people to participate in activities of their choice. At this inspection we checked to see if the provider had made the necessary improvements. We found that improvements had been made.

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.

The person using the service told us they felt safe living at Homefield College Limited – 37 Greedon Rise. Their relative agreed that they were safe living there. They were kept safe from avoidable harm because the staff team understood their responsibilities. They knew what to look out for if they suspected that someone was at risk of harm and knew who to report their concerns too. The risks associated with the person’s care and support had been assessed and reviewed. Appropriate recruitment processes were in place to make sure only suitable people worked at the service and appropriate numbers of staff were available to support the person living there. Processes were in place to make sure that when people needed support with their medicines, this was carried out in a safe way.

The staff team were appropriately trained and were supported by the management team through supervisions, appraisals and staff meetings. They were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) ensuring people's human rights were protected. The person using the service had access to relevant healthcare services and were supported to attend appointments when required. They had been involved in developing menus to include their own likes and preferred choices. Their dietary requirements had been identified and they were supported to follow a healthy and balanced diet.

Independence was promoted and the person using the service was supported to make choices about their care and support on a daily basis. They were supported in a kind and caring way and their dignity was respected.

A plan of care had been developed with them and with people who knew them well. The staff team knew the needs of the person they were supporting because the necessary information was included within their plan of care. Whilst records were kept of the support provided to the person using the service, these were not always up to date or accurate. Actions had been taken to address this.

The person using the service was regularly reminded of what to do if they had a concern of any kind.

Staff members felt supported by the management team and told us there was always someone available to talk with should they need guidance or support. The views of the person using the service were sought. This was through informal chats and meetings. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided and a business continuity plan was available to be used in the event of an emergency or untoward event.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 16 October 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 17 January 2014 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements. We asked them to improve practice relating to obtaining peoples consent and acting in accordance with it. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. At this inspection we found improvements had been made to meet the relevant requirements.

Homefield College Limited - 37 Greedon Rise is a registered care service, providing accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to three people. There were two people using the service at the time of our inspection. The service had recently reopened as residential accommodation on 1st September 2015.

The service is required to have 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. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.

People felt safe at the service. People felt able to talk to staff members about any concerns. Weekly house meetings were held where items such as fire safety, health and safety and safeguarding were discussed to support people to understand these areas.

Staff had a good understanding of the various types of abuse and told us how they were able to report any concerns or incidents. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and supported them in line with them support plans.

Staffing levels at the service were adequate. However, people’s activities did not always take place because staff with the required skills were not always available.

People were provided with day to day choices about the things that they wanted to do. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and knew the steps that they should take if they had a concern about a person’s capacity in relation to a decision.

Risk assessments and care plans were in place, staff were aware of any changes but these had not always been regularly reviewed.

Staff all shared the same vision and values and promoted them through their daily work.

Relatives told us that the communication between staff at the service and themselves was good. Quality assurance systems were in place.

We spoke with three people who used the service. When we arrived to carry out our inspection, people were getting ready to go to college for the day. One person told us the service was “good”. People were able to tell us which courses and activities they were doing that day, however due to their specialised and individual needs we were unable to speak in detail with people about their experiences of the service.

We found that people had access to a wide range of community facilities and courses, dependent on their individual needs and choices. These included activities such as learning independent living skills, horticulture, art, drama and swimming. The service had a working café in a neighbouring village and people were supported to work within the café as part of their timetable of activities. In addition, the service also had an internet café in the local town. People were encouraged and supported to participate in cleaning, food shopping and meal preparation and we found that people’s independence was promoted by the service.

We looked at the records of two people who used the service and found care plans were detailed and thorough and provided clear guidance to staff about how the persons’ care should be delivered.

However, we found that the service did not have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining people’s consent and acting in accordance with the best interests of the person when they were unable to consent to the care and treatment being provided.

Staff had been appropriately screened to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and treated people with dignity and respect.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely. All records we looked at, including medication records, were accurate and fit for purpose.