The inspection took place on the 10 November and was unannounced. The service is a purpose built residential care home registered to provide care to up to 21 adults with a physical disability. On the day of our inspection there were 21 people using the service of which one person was on a four week respite stay. The building is all on ground floor level and rooms were single occupancy with hand basin facilities. Specialist bathing facilities were available. There were two communal lounges and dining areas and access into a private garden.

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 were supported by staff that had completed training and understood what types of abuse people could be at risk from, what signs to look for and the actions they needed to take if they suspected abuse. Relevant checks had been carried out on staff to check they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There was enough staff with the appropriate training and skills to effectively meet the needs of people living at James Burn House. Staff were supported with regular supervision and an annual appraisal which provided opportunities to discuss their professional development.

People were involved in decisions about how risks they lived with were managed. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed.Actions taken to minimise risk were put in place whilst supporting people to remain independent and have their freedoms and choices respected. Accidents and incidents were investigated and where appropriate led to referrals to other professionals and changes to people’s care and support plans. Personal evacuation plans were in place that provided an overview of people should they need to leave the building in an emergency.

People had their medicine stored and administered safely by staff that had received training and had their medicine administration competencies checked annually. When people administered their own medicines a risk assessment had been completed and was regularly reviewed. People had access to healthcare in a timely way and when they needed supported with appointments.

We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported by staff to make choices about their day to day care. Deprivation of liberty safeguards had been applied for when people had been assessed as not having the mental capacity to consent to their care. When decisions had been made in peoples best interests they had included staff, families and other professionals and any decisions had been the least restrictive to the person.

People were supported by staff who understood their eating and drinking requirements. Menus provided choices and alternatives were available at any time.

Staff interacted with people in a relaxed and friendly way and knew how to communicate with people in ways that were individual to them. People were involved in decisions about their care and had their views listened too. Advocacy information was available and staff encouraged people to access it when appropriate. People had their privacy, dignity, independence and individuality respected by staff. A complaints procedure was in place that people felt able to use and that they would be listened to and any necessary actions would be taken.

People had care and support plans that provided clear information about how people wanted to be supported and were reviewed with people at least six monthly. Reviews included setting goals with people of things they would like to achieve. People were able to get involved in a range of activities linked to their interests both in the home and the commun

We inspected the home unannounced on 27 November 2012.

The purpose of this inspection was to check whether action had been taken about the unpleasant odours in the home. We also checked whether there were PRN (as needed) medication plans in place for people.

We completed a tour of the home and talked with people during the inspection visit. However, we did not specifically speak to people about living at James Burns House.

We spoke with the deputy manager and three staff, reviewed medication plans and management systems. We checked communal areas, toilets, bathrooms and bedrooms for cleanliness.

We found the home was free from unpleasant odours and there was a regular schedule of carpet cleaning.

PRN (as needed) medication plans were in place and regular medication audits were taking place.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of James Burns House on 18 July 2012.

People told us that they were involved in planning their care and support.

There were opportunities for people to be involved in meetings about the home supported by staff and or volunteers.

People commented about recent changes in their relationships with staff and they did not have the time to spend talking with them.

All of the people spoken with at James Burns House told us that they felt safe at the home and with staff.

There were unpleasant odours in some communal areas and bedrooms. This meant that people’s dignity was not being respected or maintained.

We carried out this unannounced inspection as part of our schedule of inspections. We visited the home on two days and spoke with six people that lived in the home. We looked at five care plans and when possible we observed the support people received. We also spoke with five members of staff.

We found that people's needs were assessed and a plan of care drawn up to meet these needs. Plans contained sufficient information to ensure people were supported in accordance with their personal preferences. When people were at risk of harm, measures had been taken to minimise this risk.

People were able to choose how they spent their time and could participate in a range of activities. We saw that the home had volunteers who helped to coordinate these activities.

People were support to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and had a choice of what to eat and drink and where to take their meals.

Appropriate infection control procedures were in place. These included training on hand hygiene, checks on practice and routine monitoring of the cleanliness of the home.

People were supported by staff that been recruited in a safe manner and when possible involved in this process.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.