The inspection for Mrs A and Mr R Brooks – 5 Everton Road took place on the 22 and 23 October 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

The service is a residential care home but it is set out as a collection of four shared houses which are near each other. The home has staff available 24 hours a day but these staff are spread across the houses, which means there are periods where people are in their house without immediate access to staff. The houses are situated in a residential area which is within walking distance of the town centre. The four houses can accommodate up to 15 people and it specialises in providing a service to adults who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were 15 people living in the home and all of them could communicate well.

The home was owned by two people, one of which was the 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 care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that showed serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People being supported by Mr and Mrs Brooks told us they felt very safe living at the home. Staff showed a good awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew who to inform if they saw or had an allegation of abuse reported to them. The registered manager was also aware of their responsibility to liaise with the local authority if safeguarding concerns were raised.

Some areas of medicines management needed to improve but the provider completed most of the improvements before the end of the inspection period and assured us that staff training regarding medicines management, and the providers policies would be updated to ensure staff administered people’s medicines safely.

The provider had suitable processes to assess people’s needs. Care plans were detailed and contained risk assessments that documented areas of risk to people, such as road safety. Staff also sought peoples consent to care.

The provider employed enough staff to cover the needs of the home and there was a robust recruitment and selection process in place where staff had been subject to criminal record checks before starting work at the service, although these needed to be updated.

The provider had infection control arrangements in place and people’s homes were clean, tidy, and free from any unpleasant odour. Accident and incident reporting was robust. Staff knew the reporting process. Records showed that staff had taken appropriate action where necessary and made changes to reduce the risk of a re-occurrence of an incident.

Staff had the skills, knowledge, and experience to support people. Appraisals were completed annually and staff had regular supervision which helped develop and motivate staff to improve on the care and support being delivered.

Staff supported people to eat, drink and keep a balanced diet. People told us that they had choices of food and that the quality of the food was excellent. People told us they had access to healthcare services such as GPs, Dentists, and Chiropodists.

People were supported to take part in activities of their choi

This inspection took place on 31 May 2016 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

5 Everton Road is a collection of four shared houses which are in close proximity to each other. The houses are situated in a residential area which is within walking distance of the town centre. The service can accommodate up to 15 people and it specialises in providing a service to adults who have a learning disability.

At our last inspection of the service on 13 November 2013 we did not identify any concerns with the care provided to people.

At the time of our inspection there were 15 people using the service. This consisted of five people who lived in one of the houses, four in another house, three in another of the houses and three people in the last house. We visited each of the houses and met with all but one of the people who lived there. People were able to show us around their homes and were able to tell us about their experiences of living there.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

There was a happy, relaxed and inclusive atmosphere in the home. A member of staff said member of staff told us “Everything here is resident led. It’s their home and I am just privileged to be involved in supporting them to live a happy life.” A relative we met with told us “[Providers’ names] and all the staff are fantastic in every way. They really do care about the residents.”

Staff morale was very good and people looked relaxed and happy with the registered providers and with the staff who supported them.

People were able to build trusting relationships with the staff that supported them. There had been only one change to the staff team in the last six years the providers and the majority of the staff team had cared for the people at the home for over 20 years. They knew people and their families very well. One person said “The staff are lovely and they are very helpful.” Another person told us “[Names of providers’] and all the staff are really, really kind. I think the care we get here is excellent.” Another person said “I have an amazing life here. Everybody is really kind. We all get on. I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else.”

People told us they felt respected by the staff who supported them. One person said “This really does feel like my home. I do what I like. The staff don’t interfere but they are there if I need them. It’s perfect really.” Another person told us “I choose what I want to do. Staff never tell me what to do. I have a key to my house and a key to my bedroom. The staff always knock before they come in.”

People lived in a safe environment and were supported by a staff team who had the skills and experience to meet their needs and help to keep people safe. There were further systems in place to minimise risks to people. These included staff recruitment procedures, staff training in recognising and reporting abuse and the safe management and administration of people’s medicines.

People were supported to live an independent lifestyle with reduced risks to themselves or others. There were risk assessments in place which identified risks and the control measures in place to minimise risk. These were understood and followed by staff. For example, one person who lived at the home told us how they liked to travel. They said “We have a plan and it works. It helps me to do the things I want to do and makes sure I’m safe and the staff know where I am.”

People were supported to maintain good health and wellbeing. They saw health and social care professionals when they needed to. A relative we met with told us “I don’t have to worry about a thing. They [the staff] mon

People told us that they understood the care choices available to them, and could have their views taken into account in the way their care was delivered. A person told us, "They always ask what we want to do at weekends.” Another person told us, "We do our own menus and go shopping." Another person said, "We have residents meetings."

We found that people's needs were assessed, and care was planned and delivered to meet people's needs. A person told us, "I am aware that I have a care plan. We go through it twice a year." People's care was regularly reviewed and their personal information was held securely.

We visited the four properties that were registered as 5 Everton Road. We saw that people lived in safe, accessible surroundings that promoted their wellbeing. The four properties had environmental risk assessments and were adequately maintained.

We viewed a selection of staff records, and saw that checks had been carried out when the home employed staff. A person told us, “The staff are really good here.” Another person said, “They are real good people.”

We saw that people’s personal records, including their medical records, were accurate and fit for purpose. The registered manager told us that the home had off-site archiving facilities in the provider’s office. The registered manager went to the office during our visit to retrieve staff records.

We spoke with all four people living in the house, who told us they were very happy with the care they received. One person described the house as a “nice family” and another person told us “I am really happy here.” People told us they had involvement in the planning of their care and daily lives, one person told us “It’s just like a normal house, I can do as I want.”

People had access to a range of activities both within the home and externally which included work placements. These activities were tailored around people’s preferences and people were supported by the staff to develop independent living skills. Personal care plans were individually tailored to meet people's needs and their risks were assessed.

People were protected from harm as there were appropriate safeguarding procedures. Staff were supported by the provider through training and were encouraged in their professional development. Staff received regular supervision but the provider had not completed an annual appraisal with any staff.

The service had effective systems to monitor the quality of service provided.