This was an announced inspection that took place on 13 September 2016.

14 Churchfields is a care home for adults with learning disabilities. The home can accommodate up to two people. The home has a communal lounge and dining room and people have their own bedroom and bathroom. At the time of our visit two people were living at the home.

The provider has another home, Woodstock, which is situated less than a mile away from 14 Churchfields. Woodstock was also inspected as part of this visit. The two homes have a number of staff who work across both of them. The provider’s records also relate to both locations.

The home 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. The home is shared with the provider of the service and their family, who is also the registered manager. The staff team are all family members of the registered manager.

Staff told us they worked as part of a team, that the home was a good place to work and they were committed to providing care that was centred on people's individual needs. There was a strong caring culture shown by the registered manager and staff. People told us that they felt cared for and valued by staff, they were very happy living in the home.

Staff received the training they needed to deliver a high standard of care. They told us that they received a lot of good quality training that was relevant to their job. Everyone we spoke with including people's relatives and staff said people received individualised care in relation to all of their needs. Relatives felt that quality of life for their family member had improved since moving into the home because of the opportunities offered and high standards of care provided.

There were effective systems in place to manage risks, safeguarding and medication, and this contributed towards maintaining people’s safety. Peoples care was planned in a consistent and positive way, and protected people's dignity and rights.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs. Care plans provided detailed information about people so staff knew exactly how they wished to be supported. People were at the forefront of the service and encouraged to develop and maintain their independence. People participated in a wide and varied range of activities. Regular outings and holidays were organised and people were encouraged to pursue their interests and hobbies. The registered manager and staff were passionate about promoting people’s independence and worked hard to find opportunities for people to be independent.

The staff team had the right values and skills to work with people living at the home. Staffing levels remained at the levels required to make sure every person's needs were met and helped to keep people safe.

Systems were in place which continuously assessed and monitored the quality of the service provided, including obtaining feedback from people and their relatives. Systems for recording and managing complaints, safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents were managed well.

The people using the service said they were very happy with it. One person said, “I really like living here, it’s my home”. Another person said, “I love it here. I am very happy here”.

Care records showed that people were involved in making decisions about how they wished to be supported, and their individual choices were respected.

Care plan and risk assessments were person-centred and addressed all of the person’s needs. We noted that there were monthly reviews of people’s care plans.

People living at Churchfields told us that they went to work during the day and enjoyed this. They said they could decide how they wished to spend their spare time. They told us that they like to go out and meet friends and that they had recently been on holiday to Majorca with the providers.

People using the service told us that they felt safe. We saw evidence that the provider took reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

During our visit we looked at the requirements relating to workers. All of the staff had the necessary recruitment checks including a CRB (Criminal record Bureau) check.

The people we spoke with told us that they knew how to make a complaint and were aware of the complaints procedure. We noted that no formal complaints had been received by the provider.

The home had relevant information within the care plans that gave individualised details about each person in the home, that could be followed by anyone assisting with the support to these people

The three people who lived in this home told us they were happy and content and would not wish to live elsewhere. "None of us want to live anywhere else; we are so well looked after." They told us about their active and full lives, what they did for fun and how they were planning their next holiday abroad.

We were told about the support offered to ensure a healthy diet was encouraged and how people's weights were monitored with some people requiring assistance to loose weight due to health concerns.

The providers and helpers in this home had all received appropriate training and had police disclosure certificates that would ensure people living in the home were supported safely by appropriate skilled people.

The home was well maintained and the quality of the service offered had been surveyed in 2011 with positive feedback given by family members.

We conducted our visit on 02 September 2011. As the homes owned by Mr and Mrs Cammack are located so close together, we visited them both on the same day. We also spoke with people from both homes together as they arrived back from their day placements.

People with whom we spoke told us that they liked living at the home and that they liked to spend time with the people living at Woodstock, the other service owned by Mr and Mrs Cammack and located very close by. They said they received the care and support they needed and were able to do very much the things they want to do. One person said "We can do what we want when we want." The people we spoke with said they got on well with each other and also with Mr and Mrs Cammack. They told us the food was good and that they could choose what they wanted. People had recently been on holiday together and they spoke about how much they had enjoyed the holiday and the places they had visited. People living at the home told us that if they had any concerns or worries they would speak with Mr Cammack. They were confident that he would listen and he would act on any concerns.

The people we spoke with told us about the choices they could make about their daily living and how they spent their time. They also said they got on well with the providers and their family. They said they felt they were part of the family and amongst friends.

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The two people who were using the service worked at a day centre. The first inspection visit was in an afternoon/evening to enable the inspector to speak with the people using the service on their return from work. The second inspection visit provided the opportunity to review the service’s records.

The service was based in the providers’ home and aimed to provide a family environment for people with learning disabilities. The providers delivered the required care and support with occasional assistance, when needed, from two members of their family.

We reviewed the care plans for both of the people who used the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what the people using the service and the registered manager told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

The providers were experienced in delivering care. We saw evidence that they refreshed their training, for example in infection control, to ensure that they could continue to provide safe care and support to the people who used the service.

People's care plans identified and assessed risks in their daily lives, such as when travelling alone outside their home. These risk assessments were reviewed to ensure that they remained current so that people could be provided with the care and assistance they needed to keep them safe and healthy.

The service liaised with the emergency services and arrangements were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies, for example if a person went missing.

There were ongoing assessments of people’s ability to understand risks and make decisions. We saw that there were procedures in place in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager demonstrated that they understood the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service effective?

People received the care and support they required to maintain their health and well-being. Notes in people’s care plans confirmed that the providers took prompt action if people had any health issues or other problems.

We saw that people's welfare was protected whilst their independence and social interaction was supported.

Is the service caring?

People were pleased with the service and felt that they received good care. One person told us that the providers were, "Very nice people”.

People's care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs and preferences. The family setting provided a happy and secure environment.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service was responsive to people's wishes. Care plans were agreed with the people who used the service and were reviewed and adjusted in consultation with them when there were any changes in their needs. Feedback was encouraged at the service. We saw this feedback which confirmed that people who used the service, their relatives and friends and health and social care professionals were pleased with the care and support provided.

Is the service well led?

The providers were well organised and caring. They had effective systems in place to check and monitor the quality of the service.

We saw that training was undertaken, and refreshed, to ensure that carers were equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to be able to look after the people who used the service.

The service aim of providing, 'Family life along with the opportunity to lead a full and independent existence', was being achieved.