This was an unannounced inspection which took place on the 9 November 2016. Longcroft Cottage provides accommodation and personal care for up to three people with a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder and a sensory disability. At the time of our inspection there were two people living there. People had a range of support needs including help with their personal care, moving about and assistance if they became confused or anxious. Staff support was provided at the home at all times and people required supervision by one or more staff when away from the home. Each person had their own room, they shared a bathroom and shower room as well as living and dining areas. The home was surrounded by gardens which were accessible to people.

At the last inspection on 4 August 2015, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to poor infection control measures, to submit authorisations to the supervisory body for people deprived of their liberty, maintain accurate records and improve medicines administration. In addition, improvements were needed to recruitment procedures and ensuring staff had access to training as well as improving quality assurance processes. The provider sent us an action plan detailing when these improvements would be made. We found this action had been taken.

There was a registered manager in place who was also the provider and nominated individual. 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.

Quality assurance systems although in place were not being completed to make sure people and those important to them had the opportunity to give feedback about people’s experience of their care and support. Systems had been developed to audits within the home to ensure that standards and checks were being maintained. These had not yet been carried out with so that improvements could be evidenced.

People’s care was individualised reflecting their personal wishes, likes and dislikes and routines important to them. Their care records were personalised providing clear guidance about how they wanted to be supported. Their communication needs were highlighted and staff had a good understanding of how to promote positive communication. Staff were observed using sign language and said they understood what people were feeling by “their facial expressions.” People at times became anxious or upset and staff knew how to support them to find peace and become calmer.

People enjoyed a range of meaningful activities including carriage driving, swimming and walks around their home. They liked to help out with the chores and recycling and were encouraged to be as independent as they could be. Staff treated them with kindness and respect, reassuring them when needed. People had positive relationships with staff, requesting their company or asking them questions. Staff responded sensitively and professionally. People were supported to make day to day choices and decisions and when needed decisions were made in their best interests in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Deprivation of liberty authorisations had been submitted to keep people safe from harm.

People were supported by staff who had access to training and individual meetings to help them to develop and carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff said communication was good between them and management. They knew how to keep people safe from harm and would raise concerns with managers if they had any. Systems for the recruitment of staff were satisfactory and there were enough staff to support people.

The registered manager was supported by a manager on a day to day basis. Staff said they could talk through any issues or ideas with the management team at any

This inspection took place on 4 August 2015 and was announced. Longcroft Cottage provides accommodation for up to three people with a learning disability and sensory disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were three people living there. People had a range of support needs including help with their personal care, moving about and assistance if they became confused or anxious. Staff support was provided at the home at all times and people required supervision by one or more staff when away from the home. Each person had their own room, they shared a bathroom and shower room as well as living and dining areas. The home was surrounded by gardens which were accessible to people.

There was a registered manager in post. 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. The registered manager was also the registered provider of Longcroft Cottage and was supported by another manager to help run the service.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People were put at risk by poor infection control systems. The area where their washing was done did not provide suitable hygienic facilities for their laundry or for staff carrying out these duties. Although there were plans to develop cleaning schedules and comply with national guidance on the prevention and control of infections these had not been put in place. When people were deprived of their liberty to keep them safe from harm, the relevant authorisations had not been requested. People’s records were not being archived or destroyed to make sure staff had access to the most up to date information about people. People did not benefit from staff who had been able to maintain and renew their skills and knowledge in line with best practice guidance and changes in legislation. The registered manager did not have robust quality assurance processes in place to monitor, assess and review the quality of care and support provided and to drive through improvements.

People’s changing needs were recognised and they had access to community professionals when needed to help them to stay well and to manage their health and well-being. Staff understood how to keep people safe and what to do should they suspect harm or abuse. People enjoyed a range of activities in their local community such as coach driving at a local riding stables or swimming. When at home they helped with the housework or enjoyed sensory activities including the use of sound, images and massage. People kept in touch with people important to them through the telephone, letter or visits.

People had positive relationships with staff. They were treated with respect and sensitivity. When upset or distressed staff gently calmed them offering alternative activities or a drink. Staff understood people well and knew how to interpret their behaviour and body language. Staff used different ways to communicate with people including sign language, word books and photographs. Staff were supported by one to one meetings and occasional staff meetings. They said they worked well as a team and communication in the home was very good.

The managers worked closely with each other and staff to make sure people’s needs were met and their changing needs were responded to appropriately. The registered manager challenged poor practice and was open and accessible to staff whatever their issue or problem. The managers had completed some of the actions identified from a recent local authority audit and were working to address other issues.

Where people had been assessed by health professionals as not having capacity to consent, the provider worked with close family members and health professionals to act in the person’s best interests. However, the service had not carried out capacity assessments in respect to each person's ability to make day to day decisions.

Staff were very happy with the standard of care provided at the home. One staff member told us that people benefitted from ‘really good arrangement of activities’ and said ‘there’s always something to go out and do’. All three staff on duty demonstrated understanding of their responsibilities in safeguarding people and could name different forms of abuse they would report. They were unclear about local safeguarding arrangements but knew they could report any concerns to their managers, to us or to the police. We were satisfied that no incidents had occurred at the home that must be reported to us.

We looked at records for the two members of staff who had been employed since October 2010. We found that all required checks had been carried out before new staff started work. We checked a sample of records for all three people living at the home. These were up to date and were detailed in describing the care people required.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We observed the care and support people received and reviewed their care records and quality assurance systems. We looked at feedback from relatives of the people who use the service which was positive with no suggestions for how the service could be improved other than be closer to them.

We found that people were settled at Longcroft Cottage and their needs were well understood by the staff caring for them. We saw people go out for walks, attend a healthcare appointment and participate in sensory activities. One person was supported to make biscuits and another to set the table.