This inspection took place on 22 August 2018. The inspection was announced as it is a very small service and we needed to make sure there would be someone available.

32 Sunnyfield is a residential care home for three people with a range of needs. The home offers accommodation and support to adults who have a learning disability, personal disorders, mental health conditions and complex needs which arise from their diagnosis.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff had regular opportunities to update their skills and professional development. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. 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.

Care records contained clear information covering all aspects of people's individualised care and support and staff had a caring approach to working with the people who used the service.

Staff were confident in supporting people with medicines and knew people well.

There was a clear management structure and staff knew their roles and responsibilities well. There was an open and transparent culture in which staff felt valued and able to approach the registered manager. Staff told us they felt valued and enjoyed their job. We found some areas of governance had not been as robust in some areas as they could have been. We spoke to the registered manager and Head of Residential Care homes about this. The head of care told us this was an area they were working on.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place 29 March 2016 and 12 April 2016. The inspection was announced on both days as it is a very small service and we needed to make sure there would be someone available.

32 Sunnyfield is a modern three storey house, which offers a ground floor flat and shared accommodation for up to two people with shared facilities and private bedrooms on the upper two floors. The home offers accommodation and support to adults who have learning disabilities, personality disorders, mental health conditions and the complex needs which arise from their diagnosis.

The service had a registered 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.

Staff had a thorough understanding of the processes for keeping people safe, and had undertaken and regularly refreshed their training on safeguarding vulnerable adults.

There were very detailed risk specific risk assessments in place, which identified the risk, the potential outcomes and the actions which needed to be taken to minimise the risk as far as practicable.

The home was modern and nicely decorated. People who lived at the home chose the colours for all areas of the home. The equipment for example in the kitchen was of high quality and there was a programme of monitoring and replacement for all aspects of the home.

There were sufficient staff to not only meet people’s needs safely but also to ensure people were able to participate in activities which they enjoyed and which enriched their lives.

There were safe recruitment processes in use in the service, with all appropriate checks being carried out prior to staff commencing work.

Medicines were managed safely and the home was extremely clean.

All staff had received a comprehensive induction and received regular refresher training to ensure they had up to date knowledge. Staff told us the training was all classroom based and was interesting and effective.

The home was aware of and working to requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 one person who had their liberty restricted but had an authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard to ensure this had been done legally.

People had access to nutritious and healthy meals and drinks. People who lived at the home were able to choose the meals which would be served as part of their inclusion in the running of the home.

We saw staff were kind, caring and very considerate. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and there was an obvious fondness between staff and people who used the services.

Care plans were very detailed and person centred. There was evidence throughout of people’s likes, dislikes and preferences.

The registered manager was very visible in the service and despite being based in another building was clearly a very regular presence in the home.

There were robust policies and procedures in place, which incorporated the organisation's vision and values. There was regular monitoring and auditing of all aspects of the service to ensure any issues were picked up. Where there had been any issues there was clear records of the actions which had been taken in response.

The home was delivering high quality services which were improving the levels of independence and confidence of the people who lived there.

Sandringham Court is a ‘step-up’ service which means that people living here have moved on from the larger residential home. The aim was to enable people to become more independent and hopefully move on to more independent accommodation. The flat on the ground floor flat was developed to enable people to gain the necessary skills to live a more independent life.

We spoke with one of the people who used the service and they told us that they were happy living in the home. They felt that the staff were “good at their job”.

The staff we spoke with told us that they were happy working there. They felt the training they received was “very good and appropriate for the group of people we work with”

We looked at two care plans and we saw that they were comprehensive with an emphasis on what the person can do. We saw that risk assessments had been carried out and risk management plans put in place to reduce risk. We saw that the risk management plans and the care plans were tailored to meet the need of the individual.

The staff we spoke with told us they had received training in safeguarding and were able to tell what they understood by the term safeguarding.

We saw that there was a sign informing people who used the service how to complain if they were unhappy with any aspect of the service. The sign used pictograms to help people who had difficulty reading.

Because people were out doing their activity programmes we were unable to speak with anyone who was using the service.