Moorville Residential is a residential care, supported living and respite care home for people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to nine people and is located on a quiet residential road in Tapton, Sheffield. The home is wheelchair accessible and near to local transport links. There were seven people living at the service at the time of this inspection.

At the last inspection on 24 November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The deputy manager and nominated individual had a good oversight of the service and were experienced in their roles. The registered manager was on annual leave at the time of this inspection. We saw established systems and processes were in place to ensure the service ran smoothly in their absence. People, their relatives and staff told us the registered manager, deputy manager and nominated individual were supportive and approachable.

Staff understood what it meant to protect people from abuse. They told us they were confident any concerns they raised would be taken seriously by management.

The care records we looked at included risk assessments, which identified any risks, associated with people’s care and had been devised to help minimise and monitor the risks while promoting the person’s independence as far as possible.

There were enough staff available to ensure people’s needs were met. We saw there were robust recruitment procedures in place to make sure staff had the required skills and were of suitable character and background.

Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

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.

Staff were supported through training, regular supervisions and team meetings to help them carry out their roles effectively.

People were supported to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Specific dietary needs were catered for.

People were supported to access a wide range of health and social care professionals to help maintain their health and wellbeing.

Positive and supportive relationships had been developed between people, their relatives, and staff. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff spoke passionately about the people they supported. They knew people’s preferences and were keen to support people to be as independent as possible.

People received personalised care. People’s care records were person-centred, up to date and regularly reviewed. They reflected the person’s current health and social care needs.

People told us they were supported to access a wide range of activities, events and appointments.

There was an up to date complaints policy and procedure. Feedback on the service was encouraged through meetings and annual questionnaires.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance.

Safety and maintenance checks for the premises and equipment were in place and up to date.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on 24 November 2015 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. Our last inspection of this service took place in January 2014 when no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

Moorville Residential is a residential care, supported living and respite care home for people with autism and aspergers syndrome. It is registered to provide accommodation for up to nine people and is located on a quiet residential road in Tapton, Sheffield. Two of the beds were located in the Lodge which are self-contained flats attached to the main building. People living in the Lodge were encouraged to be more independent but still received support from staff if needed. The home is near to local transport links to Sheffield.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

Some people we spoke with had limited verbal communication. However, they very clearly indicated they felt safe and were happy living in the home, liked the staff and did the activities they liked to do. Picture cards were used for one person to help them express their thoughts and wishes.

Medications procedures were in place including protocols for the use of ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medications. Staff had received training in medication management and medication was audited in line with the provider’s procedures. There was good guidance for staff regarding how people expressed pain or discomfort, so they could respond appropriately and seek input from health care professionals, if necessary. People had access to a good range of health care services and staff actively advocated for people if they felt health care services were not as responsive as they should be.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. At the time of this inspection the registered manager told us they had not found it necessary to use the safeguards. However the registered manager had requested a mental capacity assessment to determine one person’s capacity. This legislation is used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own.

Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of safeguarding people and they were confident their managers and the rest of their team would act appropriately to safeguard people from abuse.

The support plans we looked at included risk assessments, which identified any risks, associated with people’s care and had been devised to help minimise and monitor the risks without placing undue restrictions on people.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and to meet people’s individual needs, and the staff told us they received good training and support. Staff retention was good, and staff knew people well and had built good relationships. There was also a good mix of staff.

People were encouraged to make decisions about meals, and were supported to go shopping and be involved in menu planning. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of their care and support, where they were able, including suggestions for activities and holidays.

Staff spoke to people in a caring and positive way, treated people with respect and were mindful of their rights and dignity. There was a nice, relaxed atmosphere and people were relaxed and smiling in the staff’s presence.

The complaints process was clear and people’s comments and complaints were taken very seriously, investigated and responded to in a timely way. People didn’t have any complaints to tell us about and indicated they were happy living at Moorville. Relatives also raised no concerns about the care provided at the service.

The registered manager was very person centred in his approach. Person centred care is when staff understand what is important to the person and give them the right care and support to do the things they want. The staff we met were very enthusiastic and professional, and were good communicators. They told us they were well supported by a very open management team. It was clear from staff’s responses to question that they had a clear understanding of the ethos of the home and they knew people’s support needs very well.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by a representative of the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.

During our visit we spoke with two people using the service, two relatives, four members of staff and the manager. We looked at four sets of care planning documentation and two staff files.

Most people using the service that we spoke with gave us positive feedback about the home. Some comments included “I like it here” and “The staff are kind and the other residents are nice." All of the relatives of people using the service were happy with the home.

Most of the people using the service and their relatives told us that told us they were happy with the care that was provided in the home. One relative told us “I’m happy with the care he gets. The manager is always open to me saying things and will take this on board.”

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. One relative commented “He is safe here. It’s a safe environment.”

We found that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

We found there was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive through audits, collecting feedback and looking into complaints and incidents.

During our visit to Moorville Residential there were two people using the service. Both people using the service declined being spoken with during the visit. We spoke with staff and relatives of the people using the service and observed interactions between staff and people using the service.

We found that people who used the service were involved in their care and treatment. We found that people’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Comments from relatives included “We are very happy with the placement.” and “Very very positive all round.”

We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Relatives told us they had been kept informed about the care of the people using the service.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Relatives told us that the home was a safe environment.

We found that staff received appropriate professional development. Comments about staff from a person using the service from a satisfaction survey from November 2012 included “Staff are respectful and polite to me” and “they do enough for me already.”

We found that there was an effective complaints system in place. One relative said “We would know how to raise any concerns if we had them. A response from a person using the service in a satisfaction survey from November 2012 confirmed that they knew how to report if they had a complaint.