Mig House is a residential care home for up to six people with a learning disability. Five people were using the service when we visited.

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.

At the last inspection in April 2015, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. Systems were in place to minimise risk and to ensure that people were supported as safely as possible. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to ensure people were safe and what to do if they had any concerns.

People were protected by the provider's recruitment process which ensured staff were suitable to work with people who needed support. There were enough staff to provide care and support to people and meet their needs. Medicines were administered by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to do this.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's individual needs and how best to meet these. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and on going professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. The training and support they received helped them to provide an effective and responsive service.

People received a person centred service and had detailed personalised plans of care in place. They were supported by kind, caring staff who treated them with respect. People were supported to do as much as possible for themselves and were encouraged to be as active as possible.

Care records contained detailed information about people's needs, wishes, likes, dislikes and preferences. Their cultural and religious needs were respected and celebrated. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated them with respect. People received very personalised care. Although some people could not communicate their needs verbally, the staff found creative ways to involve them and to understand what the person wanted. They displayed empathy and helped people overcome fears and challenges. This had resulted in positive and measurable changes for the individuals who lived at the service.

People and their representatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and effective systems were in place to manage complaints.

People lived in an environment that was suitable for their needs. Specialised equipment was available and used for those who needed this.

The quality of the service was monitored by the service’s operations manager and the registered manager. The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager and the deputy manager were visible role models in the home.

This unannounced inspection took place on 22 April 2015. At the last inspection in November 2013, the registered provider was compliant with all the regulations we assessed.

Mig House is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to six people with a learning disability. It is situated in a residential setting and close to local facilities. The home has six single bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, a laundry. There is also a lounge, an activities room and a separate dining room. There is a garden at the rear of the property and car parking at the front. At the time of the inspection there were two people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post who was supported by a service 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.

People lived in a safe environment, where health and safety checks were carried out. Risk assessments were completed to help minimise risk in specific circumstances such as when supporting people in the community or within the home.

There were policies and procedures in place to guide staff. Training was provided for them in how to keep people safe from the risk of harm and abuse. In discussions, staff were clear about how they protected people from the risk of abuse.

There was a good recruitment system in place, which meant checks were carried out before new members of staff could start work at the service. We found the staff approaches to be caring and friendly. There was an easy rapport between people and the staff who supported them. People had been helped to maintain important relationships with their family. Staffing levels were adequate.

People’s health and social care needs were assessed and personalised support plans were developed to guide staff in how to care for them. They received their medicines as prescribed and had access to a range of professionals for advice, treatment and support.

People’s nutritional needs were met. Staff monitored people’s food and fluid intake and took action when there were any concerns.

People were encouraged to make their own choices. The manager had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had also received training in this subject. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisation allows for a person to be lawfully deprived of their liberty, where it is deemed to be in their best interests or for their own safety. Staff were aware that on occasions this was necessary. There were DoLS authorisations in place at the time of the inspection.

Staff spent time with people and supported them to participate in activities in the community such as day trips to the zoo, going to the local park, shopping with staff and planning and going on holidays.

There was a range of training and support systems in place to ensure staff were knowledgeable and skilled in supporting people who used the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, such as observations of staff practices, audits and surveys. Relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt the registered manager was approachable and would adequately deal with any issues. Relatives told us they did not have any concerns and felt the manager sought their views and was good at communicating changes.

We spoke with one person who lived at MIG House, Ilford, about their experiences of the service and they were very positive about the home and the staff. We observed the care that was given to people during our inspection. We also spoke with staff including the registered manager.

People's interests were fully considered in regard to making decisions about their care and support. Arrangements were in place to involve family representatives or advocates where people lacked capacity. Staff understood their responsibilities for ensuring that people agreed to the care and support required.

Care plans were written in a personalised way with details about people's preferences and needs. Care plans were reviewed every three months or when needs changed and / or an issue was observed. Staff showed a good understanding of people's needs and preferences. We noted that people received good care and staff treated them with respect.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. The provider had up to date certificates for gas safety, electrical installation and fire fighting equipment.

We found the systems to recruit staff were robust and appropriate. Staff received the training they needed to provide care and support safely.

We found the service had an effective complaints system in place. The service responded to complaints and worked with the complainant to reach a satisfactory solution.

When we arrived for the visit we observed that staff were treating people in a respectful and dignified manner. We spoke to people who used this service who confirmed this.

We looked at care plans that were personalised and comprehensive in nature. Care plans also showed us how people received a high quality of care and had good access to health care professionals such as doctors, district nurses, dentists and speech and social workers.

We spoke to people who told us that they felt safe at this home. Staff were aware of signs of abuse and training records showed us that safeguarding training was mandatory.

We spoke with staff and the manager who told us how there were always enough appropriately qualified staff on duty. This was confirmed by staff rotas and training records.

The provider's policies and procedures and health and safety checks were comprehensive. There was evidence that the provider was continually looking to improve the service and that all people were involved in this process.

We spoke to people who use the service and found that in general they were happy with the care provided by the home. People who use the service made positive comments about the service which included ‘I am happy with the home. The staff are good and we all have a laugh.’