Homefield College Limited – 76 Cossington Road is a care home located in Sileby, Leicestershire that provides support for up to three people who have a learning disability or autism. At the time of our inspection there were two people living in the home. At the last inspection in February 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People told us they felt safe living at Homefield College Limited – 76 Cossington Road. A relative we spoke with agreed with what they told us. Staff continued to keep people safe from avoidable harm because they understood their responsibilities. Risks associated with people’s care and support were assessed and monitored. New staff members were appropriately recruited and sufficient numbers of staff were employed to meet the care and support needs of those living there. People continued to be supported with their medicines in a safe way.

People were supported by a staff team that had been appropriately trained, supervised and supported. People’s human rights were protected because staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to maintain good health and they had access to relevant healthcare services. People's dietary requirements had been identified and they had been involved in developing menus to include their own likes and preferences.

People were supported by a staff team that was kind and caring and who treated them with dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices about their care and support and their independence was promoted.

People had plans of care that had been developed with them, their relatives and others that knew them well. This meant that the staff team were able to support them in a way they preferred. The staff team knew the needs of the people they were supporting well. People knew what to do if they had a concern and they were reminded of this through regular meetings and conversations.

The staff team felt supported by the registered manager. People’s thoughts of the service were sought on an informal basis, providing them with the opportunity to be involved in how the service was run. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

The inspection took place on 5 February 2015 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 4 September 2013 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 – 76 Cossington Road provide accommodation, care and support for up to three people with learning disabilities. On the day of our visit there were three people living at the home. Accommodation and living space was provided over two floors in a semi-detached property.

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 the service and they knew who to tell if they had any concerns. We saw that house meetings were held where issues such as bullying and abuse were discussed to ensure that people understood the types of behaviour that were unacceptable and knew how to raise any concerns.

Staff had a detailed knowledge of safeguarding and whistleblowing and there were policies in place for staff to follow should they need to raise any concerns.

There were robust procedures in place to ensure that people’s medicines were managed safely.

People were supported to make informed decisions about their daily living and activities they undertook. People told us they were happy living at the service. Staff promoted peoples independence and people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People’s human rights were protected because staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA is legislation that sets out the requirements that ensures where appropriate, decisions are made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves. The DoLS are a law that requires assessment and authorisation if a person lacks mental capacity and needs to have their freedom restricted to keep them safe.

People were supported to eat a balanced diet and to participate in daily living activities. The service was responsive to people’s individual hobbies and interests.

People using the service had access to information in appropriate formats to enable them to understand. Pictorial aids were used in people’s support plans and information was displayed around the service in formats for people to understand.

Values of the service were shared with staff and staff promoted them through their work. There were quality assurance audits of the service carried out. Actions identified in these were completed.

We spoke with both people who used the service and asked them about the care and support they received. One person told us they enjoyed working at ‘Barrow Treats’ and said the staff team were all really nice and supportive. Another person told us they were encouraged to be as independent as possible and carry out their own cleaning and cooking. Both people said they were supported to make choices about their programme of activities and that they had a good relationship with the staff team.

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 fully working café known as ‘Barrow Treats’ 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 known as ‘Sip and Surf’ in Loughborough. 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 one person 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.

Records we looked at were accurate and fit for purpose.

All of the residents were out on other activities or work expereince, therefore we had limited opportunities to speak with them.

However, at the end of the garden at this property four residents from the college were working on horticulture.

We were not able to comminucate with them directly but they were clearly enjoying themsleves and well supervised by staff. The facilities were very good and this was acknowledged by the students.

They showed us the plastic greenhouse and the shed/office which also had a computer in to help record the outcome of sessions.

We also visited another house which had students from 76 Cossington Road. They were taking part in a combined art session.

One student from 76 told us, "Today the paintings I’m doing are about Halloween. I’ve drawn a large pumpkin".

Another student told us she liked living at the house and was well looked after.

Because people, who live at 76 Cossington Road, have limited communication, we were unable to ascertain what people felt about their experiences. The staff indicated they felt well supported even with no permanent manager in post. One member of staff indicated the staff still continued to have regular supervisions and weekly tutorials, where they would review a number of documents relating to the care of people.