This inspection took place on 8 March and was unannounced..

This service provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Meadow Court is made up of 18 self-contained flats within one building and one shared house at another location. Each person has an individual tenancy agreement and receives personal care and support according to their individual needs. Packages of support ranged from a few hours a day to 24 hour a day support. People required minimal physical support with personal care but most required prompting and supervision with personal care tasks such as washing and showering. The majority of people were receiving emotional and practical support to maintain and develop daily living skills and to access the community.

The service specialises in supporting people who have mental health and/or learning difficulties. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 20 people.

The provider works in accordance with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

The provider had systems and practices to minimise risks and people told us they felt safe with staff who supported them. There were adequate numbers of staff employed to make sure people could receive their support at times of their choosing.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who had undertaken training to make sure they could effectively support people. Staff monitored people’s health and helped people to access appropriate healthcare services.

People were fully involved in planning their care and were able to make choices about who supported them. The service was flexible to meet people’s changing needs and preferences. People had individual flats and their privacy was respected.

Care provided to people was very personalised and took account of people’s wishes, culture and beliefs. People were supported to follow their interests and to learn new skills. People told us they would be comfortable to make a complaint if they were not happy with the service provided to them.

The service was well led by a management team who were committed to providing care to people in a way that valued their individuality and respected their choices. The provider monitored standards and supported staff to ensure the standard of the service was maintained. They worked in partnership with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 January 2016

Mr Frederick John Eaton is registered to provide personal care to people who live in their own homes. People who use the service have individual tenancy agreements for self-contained flats within a shared building. This type of service is often referred to as supported living accommodation. At the time of this inspection there were 14 people using the service.

The service specialises in providing care and support to people who have learning difficulties and mental health needs. People required minimal physical support with personal care but some required prompting and supervision with personal care tasks. The majority of people were receiving emotional and practical support to maintain and develop daily living skills and to access the community.

The service is run by Mr Frederick John Eaton as a sole provider. As a sole provider he is not required to employ a registered manager. Instead he has opted to manage the service himself. 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 service was well led and there were systems in place to monitor quality and seek people’s views. People said the registered provider was open and approachable and we saw this throughout the inspection visit.

People were very complimentary about the staff who supported them. People said staff were kind and they felt safe with them. One person told us “I feel safe here because I know there’s always someone to talk to if I get nervous about things. Staff are nice to you.” People said they had been able to build relationships with staff and other people who used the service.

Staff received training and support to make sure they had the skills and knowledge to effectively support people. One person said “Staff are all pretty good and they know what they are doing.”

The service was flexible to accommodate people’s wishes and preferences. People told us they got the support they needed to learn and develop independent living skills and safely access community facilities.

Staff offered advice and support to people about healthy lifestyle and food choices. They also assisted people to make and attend appointments with healthcare professionals.

People continued to make choices and were fully involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. Where risks were identified staff worked with people to minimise risk to enable them to take part in activities with minimum risk to themselves or others.

The agency provided care and support to a small group of people in a supported living environment. The agency offered a service to enable people to gain independence and take part in meaningful activities. No one using the service required physical support with personal care but all needed encouragement and prompting with tasks.

We spoke with four of the six people who used the service. All were very happy with the support they received. Comments included; “It’s super. The staff are really good and always there when you need them,” ; “They are really helping me to be independent” and “It’s much better than I expected and I think I’m doing really well.”

People we spoke with told us staff were always kind and polite. One person said “Staff are always friendly and polite.” Another person told us “Staff are really helpful but they treat you like an adult.”

The agency had systems in place for receiving, handling and responding to complaints. The service user handbook gave information about how to make a complaint and what action they could expect the provider to take. It also stated that the agency encouraged complaints because it gave them an opportunity to improve the service offered.

There was a lockable office which enabled records to be securely stored. This ensured that all personal information about staff and people who used the service was kept confidential.

We inspected this service over two days. Mr Eaton ran Meadow Court as a supported living service. Of the twenty seven flats in Meadow Court twenty three were occupied and Mr Eaton provided personal care for two people who lived there. We were unable to talk to either of these people during this inspection. One person declined to speak with us and the other was not home on both days we visited. To confirm that the people who received personal care were happy with the service provided we looked at records which recorded their comments at care reviews held with the manager and their social workers. Both people stated that they were happy with the level of support they received from the agency.

We found that the agency had very clear guidance for providing the agreed personal care with each person. We saw that there were systems in place to ensure people could continue to be involved in planning their care and with who provided the care.

We found that there were systems that ensured staff were supported and received training appropriate to their role and the needs of people. However as the manager/provider was the only person who provided care at the time it was difficult to see this in practice.

We also found the agency assessed the quality of the service provided and protected the health and safety of people who received a service and others.