About the service: Lucy Lodge is a residential care home that was providing accommodation and personal care to 16 younger people, some of whom were living with mental health needs.

People’s experience of using this service: 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.

Managers were not always clear about their regulatory requirements: The registered manager had failed to ensure they had submitted all notifications as they are legally required to do as part of their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). During the inspection we checked and found the provider had submitted and received approvals for two applications in relation to depriving a person of their liberty pursuant to Mental Capacity Act 2005. Providers are required to submit these notifications so that where needed the CQC can take follow-up action.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the service provided. Staff understood the importance of providing person-centred care and had developed positive relationships with people.

People received support where this was required, and staff encouraged their independence to live fulfilled lives free from unnecessary restriction.

Staff had received training and clear guidance was followed to keep people safe from avoidable abuse. Where people had been assessed as at risk from any activity, support plans provided guidance for staff to provide safe care and support.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. Records confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.

People's records were detailed, person centred and evaluated consistently. Where agreed outcomes were not achieved, amendments were made with people’s input.

Records confirmed people’s input and where they were unable to consent the provider followed appropriate legislation to make sure any decisions were in the persons best interest.

Staff received appropriate induction, training, and support and applied learning effectively in line with best practice. This led to good outcomes for people and supported a good quality of life.

The registered manager and their deputy were responsive to any concerns we raised during the inspection; implementing corrective actions immediately where this was apparent and discussing plans where further improvements were required.

Staff were friendly and polite. Staff took time to get to know people. They had a clear understanding of, and how to support, people’s individual and diverse needs.

People and their relatives told us they were confident if they had any complaints the registered manager would address them appropriately.

People knew the owner and the registered manager and told us they trusted them. Staff told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable.

The provider completed oversight of the service to ensure quality assurance remained a priority and was effective in maintaining standards and driving improvements.

Rating at last inspection: This was the first inspection of this service.

Why we inspected: This inspection was a planned inspection following registration of the new provider.

Enforcement: Action we told provider to take. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found in inspections and appeals is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme.

For more details, please see the full report which is on CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk