At their last inspection on 30 June 2015 and 1 July 2015, they were found to be meeting the standards we inspected. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Jubilee House is a service for 6 people with complex and profound learning disabilities. It is designed to meet the mobility needs of people with full wheelchair access, specially adapted bathrooms and kitchen facilities and a garden. There were 6 people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

People received care from staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives were also positive about the care and support provided.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were creative in seeking new ways to support and encourage people to partake in a variety of social activities both within the local area and beyond.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines in a way they could support.

There was an open and respectful culture in the service and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern.

The feedback about the registered manager and leadership at the service was positive. There were quality assurance systems in place that were effective and addressed any shortfalls in the service.

We saw that staff were aware of, and responsive to, non- verbal expressions of consent or refusal when offering support to people. However, we found that formal assessments of capacity had not always been undertaken before decisions were made on people's behalf about certain aspects of care.

Most of the people who lived at Jonquil Close did not use verbal language to communicate. For this reason, we asked relatives to tell us about the care people received. They told us that they were very happy with the support their family members received. One relative told us, “They really are fantastic; they do over and above and always involve us totally. I know [my relative] is safe and very well cared for.”

Support plans, risk assessments and guidance were detailed and up to date.

A relative told us, “They have done loads to encourage [my relative] who is a poor eater.” Support plans clearly identified people’s needs and preferences in relation to eating and drinking. These were backed up by advice from a dietician where appropriate. We observed that staff had a good understanding of people's individual preferences and provided several options to reflect this.

The premises were cleaned to a good standard and there was no malodour detected in any area. Staff had an awareness of good practice in relation to the prevention and control of infection.

We found that the service had appropriate systems in place to obtain, store, administer and dispose of medicines safely.

We saw that there were care plans and risk assessments that identified the individuals needs and described how they will be met by staff. People were registered with a local G.P. The deputy manager told us that people who use the service received regular input from other health professional as identified within their care plans.

Each person has a communication passport that identified their individual communication methods . We saw evidence that people have individual health action plans which are regularly reviewed along side the care plans and risk assessments.

A relative of a person who uses the service told us that they are regularly involved in the reviewing of her relatives care plans and risk assessments.

We saw evidence that people are supported to make use of the local community, including social clubs, local shops and pubs and restaurants. Staff told us how people are supported with menu planning which included the use of pictures and symbols.

We saw staff interacting with people who use the service in a kind and respectful way when they were making Christmas decorations in the communal area.

We spoke to a relative of a person who uses the service and they told us that they had been made aware of the complaints policy and how to make a complaint. They stated that they have raised concerns in the past and they were always dealt with swiftly and to their satisfaction.

We spoke with relatives of people living in 29 Jonquil Close. People said the staff were kind and take their relative out regularly and interact with them.

Relatives told us they were very satisfied with the care and support that people received, that they felt this was a safe service and that they were confident in the service’s ability to deal with concerns promptly and properly. One relative said “If I did have any concerns I would come in and talk to the team. I am confident that any concerns’ would be ironed out and sorted out.”

A relative of a person living in 29 Jonquil Close praised the staff for the healthcare support provided. They told us that external professional advice was sought appropriately when this was required.

A relative with whom we spoke praised the commitment and dedication of the staff team. They said “They are a super team, I take my hat off to them” and “I can’t say enough, they are like family.” Relatives said they believed the staff did have the necessary skills to support people safely and said that the organisation was always sending the staff on courses to expand on their competencies.

One person living at 29 Jonquil Close told us they were happy living there and that they felt safe.

This inspection took place on the 30 June and 1st July. The inspection was unannounced.

Jubilee House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 6 people with complex learning and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection 6 people were living in the home.

There has been no registered manager in post since February 2015 however there was a competent and experienced member of staff acting as manager whilst the organisation was actively seeking to recruit a replacement. 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.

At our last inspection in 3 January 2014 the home was not meeting the required standard as consent had not been obtained in line with the requirements of the MCA 2005 with regard to administering covert medication. However at this inspection we saw action had been taken and best interest decisions involving the GP had been sought prior to administering covert medication.

People were safe as staff knew how to manage their care needs so that risks were managed in a way which ensured people had as much freedom as possible. Staffing levels meant people’s individual needs were met. People received the support they needed to pursue their chosen routines both within and outside of the home.

Staff had developed good relationships with people and were kind and caring. Each person was treated with dignity and respect. Care provided was good and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. Staff had received appropriate training and supervision.

People had access to healthcare such as GP’s dietician’s, specialist nurses and related specialist services. People were supported to enable them to maintain a balanced diet.

Staff sought peoples consent before undertaking any support.

The home was being well led by the acting manager who knew the people well and was supporting the staff. They promoted an open culture which encouraged all to express their ideas and concerns. Audits and reviews and surveys were used to monitor the quality of the service.