This inspection took place on 24 November 2016 the inspection was announced. The provider was given short notice of the visit in line with our current methodology . The registered manager was registered at three locations, we gave notice to ensure they were available at Levitt Mill on the day of our inspection. The home was previously inspected in January 2015 it was overall rated good but had one breach of regulation.

Levitt Mill is a care home for younger people with a learning disability. It comprises of two buildings known as, The Barn and The Mill. It provides accommodation for 11 people. The service is located in Maltby near Rotherham. It is within walking distance of local shops and other community amenities.

At the time of our inspection there were 10 people living in the home. Six people lived in the Mill and four in the Barn. People we spoke with were very happy with the service and told us they felt safe living at the home.

The home has 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 registered manager had been in post since May 2016 and registered with the Care Quality commission in July 2016.

Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of this and the registered manager has assessed people to determine if an application was required.

People were involved in menu planning, shopping and meal preparation. We saw people were able to choose what they wanted to eat and there was no set meal times. There was plenty of choice and snacks available. People had access to drinks as they wanted them.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and spoke to people with understanding and respect. People told us staff were caring and kind.

People’s needs had been identified, and from our observations and talking to people, we found people’s needs were met by staff who knew them well. Care records we saw detailed people’s needs and were regularly reviewed.

Staff were recruited safely and all staff had completed an induction. Staff had received formal supervision. Staff told us they felt supported by the new manager. Staff had previously received an annual appraisal of their work performance and the new registered manager was arranging these at the time of our inspection..

There were systems in place for monitoring quality, which were effective. The registered manager had identified the issues we found during our inspection and they were addressing these with the provider. This ensured where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

Since our last inspection the registered manager has left the service and a new manager had commenced the registration process with CQC.

We carried out this visit to determine if people were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts. We found the diet provided was balanced and healthy. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the food and were always given choices.

One person told us, “My breakfast was marvellous, I had two eggs and toast, I chose it.”

We carried out an inspection as we had received concerning information. These concerns have also been shared with the Local Authority safeguarding.

We have carried out this visit to determine if there was enough staff to meet the needs of the people who received the service. At the time of our visit we found there was adequate staff on duty, however there was not always sufficient numbers of experienced staff. The provider rectified this during our visit.

People we spoke with told us the service was chaotic at present as there were different staff every day. They told us there were enough staff on duty, but the different faces did upset some of the people who lived at Levitt Mill.

When we talked about the food one person told us, “If I want something different to eat I buy my own food. I like bacon and eggs so I buy these.”

We also looked at the food provided to determine if people received a healthy, balanced diet. We found people were not always supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts and the diet provided was not nutritious.

We spoke with people who used the service they said they were happy living here. One person said, “I like it here.” “I can do lots of things I like.” Another person said, “It's nice here.” They told us the staff were lovely and there were many activities. We also spoke with relatives and they told us that the service was good and staff kept them informed of any issues or changes to their relative’s health. One relative told us, “I have good relationships with staff and have regular meetings with them”. They also said they had no complaints currently but said, “If I did, I would know how to deal with it, by asking for a meeting with staff.”

We spoke with health care professionals who visited the home. They spoke positively about the service provided. However they felt when they visited staff were very busy and did not always have time to talk.

People also told us that staff treated them with respect, listened to them, gave them choices, made them feel safe and supported them. One person told us. “I really like living here; I am learning new things and the staff help me.”

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. However staff had not always followed the procedures.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. However staff told us at times it was very busy.

People's personal records were accurate and fit for purpose.

We visited the service to follow up on compliance actions set at our last visit in October 2012. As part of our visit we spoke with four people who used the service. They spoke positively about the care and support they received. They told us the staff were nice and looked after them.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Although we identified some redecoration was still required in bathrooms and the laundry in The Mill and some furniture still required replacing. The provider informed us this was being addressed.

We found that appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to obtaining medicine, administration and disposal.

Staff received appropriate professional development. A training programme was in place to provide staff with the training and support they needed. However staff appraisals had been due in December 2012. The manager had organised dates for staff to have an appraisal in January 2013.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There was a complaints policy that took account of complaints and comments to improve the service.

As part of our inspection we spoke with a number of people who used the service. They spoke positively about the care and support they received. They told us they liked living in the home and confirmed they were well supported to make choices and decisions about their care. We received comments such as: "I like living here, I get to make choices”, “Very nice staff” and “I love my bedroom.”

Relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the home. They told us staff were pleasant and kept them informed of any issues or changes. They felt their relatives were well cared for and were safe.

People we spoke with told us they liked it at Levitt Mill, they told us the staff were good and they were looked after.

People told us they had choices and were able to do what they wanted to do and staff helped them.

One person told us they were supported by staff and that staff respected them. They also told us their views were listened to and any issues were discussed, including any restrictions, these were clearly explained to them and they then understood why. The person told us it was for their safety.

People we spoke with told us they were kept informed and were involved in the care plans. They also told us they regularly talked to the manager.

People told us they felt safe at Levitt Mill and could talk to staff if they had any concerns.

One person told us, “It is good here, staff explain things, it is much better than where I used to be”.

Another person told us, “I like it here, staff are nice and I have lots of things to do”.

This inspection took place on 7 and 9 January 2015 and was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in April 2014 and the service was compliant with the regulations we looked at.

Levitt Mill is a care home for younger people with a learning disability. It comprises of two buildings known as, The Barn and the Mill. It provides accommodation for 11 people. The service is located in Maltby near Rotherham. It is within walking distance of local shops and other community amenities.

At the time of our inspection there were 11 people living in the home. Six people lived in the Mill and five in the Barn. People we spoke with were happy with the service and praised the staff very highly. People also told us they felt safe living at the home.

The home has 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.

During this inspection we identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. We found people received care that met their needs as staff knew them well. However, people’s care records did not always fully reflect the care they received and required. This is a breach of regulation 20. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) includes decisions about depriving people of their liberty so that if a person lacks capacity they get the care and treatment they need where there is no less restrictive way of achieving this. The Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) requires providers to submit applications to a ‘Supervisory Body’ for authority to deprive people of, or restrict their liberty. We found staff we spoke with were very knowledgeable on the requirements of this legislation and had already assessed people who lived a Levitt Mill to determine if an application was required.

Although people’s needs had been identified, and from our observations, we found people’s needs were met by staff who knew them well, we found some care records were not fully up to date. The registered manager told us they had identified that care records required further improvement and had devised new systems for recording information to ensure care records were kept fully updated. They told us these would be implemented the week after our visit. This would ensure people’s needs were identified with clear documentation on how to meet their needs.

Staff were recruited safely and all staff had completed an induction. Although these were not always formally documented. Staff had received formal supervision. However, this was not as frequently as the provider’s policy. Staff had an up to date annual appraisal of their work performance.

The registered manager told us they had received no formal complaints since our last inspection, but was aware of how to respond if required. People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about living at the home.