This was an unannounced inspection, which took place on 24 August 2016. We did a previous rating inspection of this service on 2 and 3 October 2014, the service was rated as good in all areas, with no breaches of legal requirements.

Lisieux House provides residential care and support to 12 younger adults with learning disabilities in the Sutton Coldfield area of Birmingham. At the time of our inspection there were 10 people living there.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

All the people and relatives we spoke with said they received a safe service. We saw that safe procedures were in place to ensure that people received a service that was safe, protected them from harm and ensured their rights were protected. Staff spoken with knew how to keep people safe from abuse. The risk of harm to people receiving a service was assessed and managed appropriately; this ensured that people received care and support in a safe way.

People were supported by staff that were suitably recruited, trained and supervised to ensure they were able to support people well. People received their medicines as prescribed. People were supported by staff that were caring, friendly and committed to people maintaining their independence and individuality. People pursued a range of social, work and community interests to enhance their well-being and their rights were protected.

People were confident that their concerns and complaints would be listened to and acted upon.

People were happy with the service they received. However, systems for monitoring the overall quality of the service were not consistently applied.

At the time of our visit there were 12 people living in the home. We spoke with eight people, the manager, and three staff. Without exception the people we spoke with were happy about the care and support provided at the home.

We saw that people were able to make choices and decisions about their care and treatment. People were asked to consent to what was happening in their lives and before any care was given.

Staff were aware of people's needs and plans were in place to deliver care in a personalised way. People's health care needs were met through community health services. There were systems in place to identify and manage risks to keep people safe.

People were supported to take part in a variety of activities in the home and the local community which meant that they led fulfilled lives. One person told us, ‘‘I go to rugby matches. I’ve been bowling today and am going horse riding tomorrow.’’

People were supported to maintain contact with relatives or people that were important to them. One person told us, ‘‘I go home every two weeks and come back Sunday evening.’’

Systems were in place to ensure only the appropriate people were employed to work at the home.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s views were listened to and acted on and systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service.

People told us that they were able to make choices about their daily living. We saw that people living at the home were able to maintain their independence and were involved in community activities. One person told us, “I like to go horse riding.”

Everyone living at the home that we spoke with said that they liked living there. We saw that people received the care and support they needed to help them live full and independent lives. One person said, “I go line dancing.” Another person told us about doing a course at the local college.

People told us that if they were worried about anything they would tell the staff. We saw that systems were in place to ensure that people were safeguarded from abuse.

People told us that they liked the staff that supported them. We found that staff were trained and supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

People said they were able to raise any concerns they had with staff. We found that there were systems in place to investigate and respond to people’s complaints.

People living at Lisieux House were very happy there. They were well cared for by a competent skilled and friendly staff team. They participated in numerous activities and were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions.

This was an unannounced inspection, which took place on 2 and 3 October 2014.  We last inspected this service on 5 November 2013 there were no breaches of legal requirements at that inspection.

Lisieux House provides residential care and support to 12 younger adults with learning disabilities in the Sutton Coldfield area of Birmingham.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

All the people and relatives we spoke with said they received a safe service. We saw that safe procedures were in place to ensure that people received a service that was safe, protected them from harm and ensured their rights were protected. Staff spoken with knew how to keep people safe from abuse. The risk of harm to people receiving a service was assessed and managed appropriately; this ensured that people received care and support in a safe way.

All the people, relatives and staff spoken with said there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet the needs of people and keep them safe. Everyone that used the service felt the staff that supported them was trained and competent. We saw that all relevant checks required by law were undertaken for all staff that worked at the home. We found that staff received the training development and support needed to ensure they did their job well and provided an effective service.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including when balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care. The MCA Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) requires providers to submit applications to a ‘Supervisory Body’ for authority to deprive someone of their liberty. All staff spoken with understood the MCA and DoLS and the manager was in the process of making applications for people that this applied to, so that their rights could be fully protected in line with the recent high court ruling.

People told us that staff supported them with eating a healthy diet and exercising choice and control over what they ate and drank. Everyone and their relatives spoken with said their health care needs were met where needed. People told us and we saw that staff were friendly and treated people with kindness and respect. We saw that people were encouraged and supported to live full and independent lives and were enabled to express themselves and explore their dreams and aspirations. People pursued a range of social, work and community interests to enhance their well-being. All relatives spoken with talked about the enhanced quality of life experienced by people that lived at the home.  This showed that people lived full and active lives and the provider ensured they had opportunities to participate in community life.

People received a service which focused on their individuality and they were involved in assessing and planning their care. Where people needs had changed staff followed recognised guidance to ensure they were able to meet those needs.

People and their relatives were confident that their concerns and complaints would be listened to and acted upon. We saw that the provider took steps to ensure people were able to raise concerns and comments directly to the provider any time they choose.

All the people and their relatives spoken with were complimentary about the quality of the service. The management of the service was stable, with robust processes in place to monitor the quality of the service. People were actively involved in how the service was managed. This included involvement in recruiting new staff and being part of a steering group, so that they could discuss issues and improvements across the organisation.