Inshore Support – 88 Broad Street provides accommodation for up to four people living with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were two people living in the home. There were two people living at the home on the day of the inspection and because of this and the fact we want to protect people’s rights to a private life, the report will provide an overview rather than specific examples.

At the last inspection, in July 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People continued to receive care in ways which helped them to remain as safe as possible. Staff understood risks to people’s safety and supported people receive their prescribed medicines safely. There was enough staff to provide support to people to meet their needs.

Staff received training which matched the needs of people who lived at the home, so they would develop the skills and knowledge to care for them. People made day to day decisions about their care and staff used their skills to make sure people were agreeing to the care offered to them. People were supported by staff if they needed help making key decisions about their life. People were cared for so they had enough to eat and drink and their food preferences were met. Staff supported people to see health professionals so they would remain well.

People enjoyed spending time with the staff who cared for them and were treated with dignity and respect. Staff spoke warmly about the people they cared for and encouraged them to make their own day to day decisions and maintain their independence.

People's care was planned in ways which reflected their preferences and wishes. Relatives’ and health and social care professionals’ views and suggestions were taken into account when people’s care was planned. No complaints had been made since our previous inspection, however, people, relatives and staff were confident if any complaints were made these would be addressed. Systems were in place to manage complaints.

People, their relatives and staff were encouraged to make suggestions to develop the care they received further through open communication with the senior team. The registered manager and provider regularly checked the quality of the care people received. Where actions were identified these were undertaken to improve people’s care further.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an unannounced inspection on 16 July 2014. At the last inspection on 24 October 2013 we found that there were no breaches in the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have 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.  We found at the time of our visit there was not a registered manager in post. This was because the registered manager had just left the service. The provider had recruited an acting manager to run the service whilst a recruitment campaign for a registered manager was implemented. The acting manager informed us the provider had given them a three month contract whilst  they recruited a new registered manager. We refer to the acting manager as the manager in the body of this report.

Inshore (88 Broad Street) is a care home for up to four people. This service provides care and support to people with learning difficulties. Two people lived there at the time of our inspection. We were able to see and talk with them both.

All the people we spoke with said, or indicated through sign language, that they were happy living at the home.

People made everyday decisions about how they wanted to spend their time and what they wanted to eat. One person smiled and gave us a ‘thumbs up’ whilst they were enjoying their meal.

During our observations over the course of the day we saw that people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff were able to tell us about the people they supported, for example, their personal histories and their interests.

The provider had good systems in place to keep people safe. Assessments of the risk to people from a number of foreseeable hazards had been developed and reviewed. We saw that staff followed these guidelines when they supported people who lived there, for example, where people became anxious and displayed behaviour that could cause them or others harm.

There was a robust recruitment procedure in place and we found that staff had the required checks carried out prior to commencing their employment at Inshore Support Limited.

People’s needs and choices had been clearly documented in their care plans. We saw that people were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. We saw from the records we looked at that where people lacked the capacity to make decisions, best interest meetings were held. This was for finances, medicines and other areas which affected a person’s safety.

The manager was involved in day to day monitoring of the standards of care and support that was provided to the people who lived at Inshore. This ensured that people received care and support that met their needs and enabled them to do the things that they were interested in.

People who lived at Inshore, relatives, and staff were encouraged to provide feedback to continuously monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

On arrival at the home we spoke with the registered manager. We also spoke with a newly recruited member of staff and two other staff members. There were three people living at the home. We were able to meet and speak to two of the people who lived at 88 Broad Street. One person said, "I like it here, I'm happy." Another person told us, “I get on with everyone.”

People were happy to be introduced to us. Some people spent time chatting to us, one person showed us around the home and their bedroom. Bedrooms were decorated in individual styles and reflected people's personalities and interests.

We observed people moving freely around the home making choices about how they wanted to spend their time. One person told us, "I'm going out today into town. I can choose if I want to go out."

There were adequate numbers of staff present to meet the needs of people who used the service. We saw there were three staff members in addition to the manager. The staff numbers allowed for individual attention for people whilst others were involved in activities outside the home.

During our visit we asked about the process for monitoring the quality of the service provided. We saw the home had good monitoring procedures in place. Evidence showed checks were regularly made on medication records, risk assessments and care plans.

On arrival at the home we spoke with the manager. The manager was an interim manager who had applied to be the registered manager. The registered manager shown at the top of this report had recently resigned.

There were three people living at the home. We were able to meet and speak to two people who used the service. People were happy to be introduced to us. Some people spent time chatting to us, one person showed us their room. Rooms were decorated in individual styles and reflected people's personalities and interests.

We asked people who used the service whether they were given choices. People told us "I can choose what I want to do." We observed people moving freely around the home making choices about how they wanted to spend their time.

People told us they were treated with consideration and respect. One person said "I've been here a while now and I like it." Another person told us "I get on well with everyone."

There were adequate numbers of staff present to meet the needs of people who used the service. We saw there were three staff members in addition to the manager. The staff numbers allowed for individual attention for some people whilst others were involved in activities outside the home.

During our visit we asked about the process for monitoring the quality of the service provided. We saw the home had good monitoring procedures in place. Evidence was available to show checks were regularly made on records and care plans.

There were two people at the home at the time of our visit. One person was unable to express their views to us but used hand gestures to signal that they were happy. The other person had recently moved in and said that she had settled well and talked about what she was going to do that day.

The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly and people appeared to be at ease in their surroundings. The home was comfortable and well maintained and staff on duty appeared confident and competent in their role. We spoke to staff and it was evident that they had knowledge of people's needs and tried hard to ensure that these are met.

Sufficient staff were on duty to ensure that people's social needs can be met, people are able to participate in activities of their choosing. When one person returned from college they decided to do some painting which they were seen to enjoy.