Moorpine is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of three people who have autism spectrum disorder. Two people were using the service at the time of inspection.

At the last inspection in June 2015 we had rated the service as Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good and met each of the fundamental standards we inspected.

Some people were unable to tell us about the service because of their complex needs. People appeared content and relaxed with the staff who supported them. Relatives told us they were satisfied with the service provided by Moorpine staff. Staff knew the people they were supporting well and there were enough staff on duty to provide individual care to people. Detailed records accurately reflected the care provided by staff.

Risk assessments identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks. People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible, and staff worked to help people learn new skills.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff received other appropriate training and they were supervised and supported. When new staff were appointed, thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

Staff upheld people's human rights and treated everyone with great respect and dignity. Every effort was made to help people communicate their needs and wishes, including the use of communication technology, so that care could be tailored to the individual person.

People were involved in decisions about their daily care requirements. 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.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed. Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines in a safe way. However, no one was in receipt of medicines at the time of inspection. People were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet.

People were empowered to make meaningful decisions about how they lived their lives. People were encouraged and supported to go out and engage with the local community and maintain relationships that were important to them.

Relatives and staff spoke well of the registered manager and they said the service had good leadership. There were effective systems to enable people to raise complaints, and to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People told us they would feel confident to speak to staff about any concerns if they needed to. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. These methods included feedback from people receiving care.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 11 June 2015. The last inspection of this home was carried out on 9 July 2013. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

Moorpine provides care and support for three people who have autism spectrum condition. The care home is a detached family house in a residential area near the city centre. The service is situated beside two similar small care homes and all three services are managed by the same 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.

The people who lived at the home had complex needs that meant they were unable to express their views. Relatives made positive comments about the service. They described the service as safe and said people felt “settled” at the home. Relatives felt included in decisions about their family member’s care. Staff were clear about how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. Any concerns had been investigated to make sure people were protected.

Medicines were managed in the right way, but a recent change in medicines records had led to some recording errors which meant staff needed more instruction in this. There were enough staff employed to make sure people had one-to-one support when they needed it. There had been a few changes to staff members to create a better mix of skills and experience. Relatives said they would like more information about staff changes in the future. In most areas the premises were safe, comfortable and well decorated. However the bathroom had a split in the flooring and the shower tray base was cracked, which presented health and safety hazards for the people who lived here. These were addressed shortly after the inspection visit.

Relatives told us they had confidence in the way people’s needs were met by the service. One relative commented, “My [family member] requires a high level and very complex level of support and we are appreciative of the efforts that the organisation make towards this for him and the other residents.”

Relatives also felt staff were competent and supported to provide the specialist service to meet their family member’s needs. Staff were well trained in supporting people with autism. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to make sure any restrictions were in people’s best interests. For example all of the people who lived there needed staff support and supervision when out in the community because they had little understanding of road safety.

People were supported to enjoy an active lifestyle that included healthy diets which met their individual preferences. They were encouraged to be involved in shopping, choosing and preparing meals.

Relatives felt staff understood each person and supported them in a way that met their specific needs. They felt fully involved in reviews about their family member’s care. Relatives told us they felt people were well cared for in the home. Each person had a range of social and vocational activities they could take part in. People’s choice about whether to engage in these activities was respected.

Relatives were invited to comment on the service in an informal way and they felt able to give their views about the home at any time. The results of previous annual satisfaction questionnaires had not been collated so they had not been shared with relatives and other relevant agencies, but this was going to be done in the future. People and relatives had some information about how to make a complaint, although this did not contain contact details about who to complain to. However relatives said they were confident that any issues would be looked into.

Relatives and staff felt the organisation was well run and the home was well managed. One relative commented, “The people in the organisation care about the people who use its service. They are very willing and understand people’s needs.” There was an open, approachable and positive culture within the home and in the organisation.

We carried out this inspection because we received information of concern that staff did not have up to date training in mandatory topics, including first aid.

We visited the home and spoke with the manager and deputy manager. We looked at the ‘Learning and Development’ files of four staff. We also looked at a training management plan that showed when staff should have updated, refresher training.

We found some areas of refresher training were out of date, there were gaps in the mandatory training of a small number of staff, and training records were inaccurate.

We visited this home on 18 April 2012. We visited again on 3 May 2012 to get further information about staff training that had not been available on our first visit.

The three young men who lived at Moorpine had complex needs that limited their communication and verbal skills. This meant they could not tell us their views about the service.

We spent some time with people during a teatime meal and observed how staff supported them. We saw that staff encouraged people to make their own choices and decisions. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respected their diverse needs.

We saw that relatives had completed an annual satisfaction survey in June 2011 which showed they thought people at the home felt “safe and secure”. Relatives had also commented that “staff treat people fairly and with respect.”

We saw that people’s bedrooms were decorated and furnished to suit their individual lifestyle and choices. We saw that people made good use of all areas of the house as they wished.

We saw records of tickbox surveys that people had completed. These showed us that people liked the facilities at the home, including their accommodation, activities and menus.

Relatives had made positive comments about the “friendly” staff in a satisfaction survey by the provider. One relative wrote, “I know that all the carers are extremely competent at their jobs.”

We saw records of the monthly Residents’ Meetings which showed people

were encouraged and supported to make suggestions about their home and the service they received.

The three young men who lived at Moorpine had complex needs that limited their communication and verbal skills. This meant they could not tell us their views about the service.

We spent some time in the house, and observed how staff supported them. We saw that staff encouraged people to make their own choices and decisions. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respected their diverse needs.

We spoke with the parents of one person for their views about the service. They made many positive comments about Moorpine. They told us, “We are very happy with the service and what they help him to do.”

People had lots of opportunities to go out to activities they enjoyed. We saw care staff supported each person with their specific individual needs while respecting their dignity and choices. People enjoyed a varied diet and the home helped people with their nutritional needs.

We saw the provider had improved the way that essential staff training was managed and recorded.

We saw the provider checked the quality of the service, and asked people and their relatives for their views. The home had a complaints procedure and people were encouraged to show if they did not like something.