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

Woodstock is a care home for adults with learning disabilities. The home can accommodate up to three people. The home has a communal lounge and dining room and people who use the home each have their own bedroom and bathroom. The home is shared with the deputy manager and their family.

The provider has another service, 14 Churchfields, which is situated less than a mile away from Woodstock. 14 Churchfields 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 deputy manager and their family are part of the registered manager’s extended family, who is also the registered provider of the home. The staff team are all family members of the registered manager. At the time of our visit three people were living at the home.

Staff told us they worked as part of a team, that the home was a good place to work and 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 made sure people were kept safe. 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 provided at the home. They were 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 who lived 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, including obtaining feedback from people who used the home and their relatives. Systems for recording and managing complaints, safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents were managed well.

We spoke with all of the people using the service, both members of staff and the provider.

The three people we spoke with all said how happy they were living at Woodstock. “This is my home and family. I am very happy”. Another person through hand gestures showed us that they were happy and enjoyed the food.

We observed that people were involved in making decisions about their daily lives. The provider followed appropriate procedures when an assessment was required of people’s capacity to consent in relation to a specific decision.

Care records were detailed, up to date and person-centred. People had individual risk assessments and these were reviewed appropriately.

There were appropriate arrangements for the management of medicines and there were checking processes to make sure the administration of medicines was safe.

We saw evidence that there were enough suitable trained and experienced staff to meet the needs of the people using the service. The staff had undertaken relevant training and education and we saw evidence that they were well supported by the provider.

The service had various methods that were used to ensure the quality of the service was monitored and audited. Meetings, reviews and audits were in place and records available.

Within the care plans we reviewed, we saw that the home had relevant information that gave individualised details about each person 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. One person said, “I like living here and have a very nice room." They told us about their active and full lives and what they did for fun.

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 provider had not received any complaints. The people we spoke with said they could complain and knew they would be listened to.

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 Woodstock. They said they received the care and support they needed and were able to do very much the things they wanted 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 around their daily living and how they spend 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 three people who used 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.

Day-to-day management and delivery of the service was undertaken by two members of the providers' family. The service was based in their home and provided a family environment for the people who used the service. When additional assistance was needed, this was provided by the registered manager or by another family member.

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

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

Is the service safe?

The providers and the on-site manager were experienced in delivering care. We saw evidence that they refreshed their training, for example in food safety and in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults, to ensure that they could continue to provide safe care and support to the people who used the service. We were shown the laminated guidance provided to each person regarding hand washing and hygiene. We could see that good levels of cleanliness were maintained, especially in the bathrooms and kitchen.

People's care plans identified and assessed risks in their daily lives, such as with their mobility and weight management. 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 healthy and safe.

We saw that procedures agreed with the emergency services were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

People’s ability to understand risks and make decisions were kept under review. We saw that there were procedures in place that met 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 prompt action was taken 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 told us that the care and support that they received was, "Good".

Care and support was planned and delivered in accordance with people's needs and preferences. The family setting provided a secure and happy 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. The service encouraged feedback. We saw 'thank-you' cards and returned questionnaires, all of 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 gave clear direction and guidance. There were effective systems in place to check and monitor the quality of the service.

We saw that training was undertaken, and refreshed, to ensure that all the family members who provided care were equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to safely and effectively look after the people who used the service. The on-site manager was undertaking a NVQ Level 5 course in Leadership for Health and Social Care.

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