This inspection took place on 30 January 2018 and was unannounced. 3 Cracknell Close is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to three people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection three people were receiving support at the service.

At our last inspection in January 2016 and we rated this service good. At this inspection we found that the service remained good.

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.

This service was provided in line with the values that underpin the ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include supporting people with choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People using the service were supported to live as ordinary a life as any other citizen.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe and the steps that they should take if they suspected abuse. We saw that risks were identified and the service worked with other professionals to protect people and reduce the likelihood of harm. Medicines were safely stored and there were clear systems in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs. The staff team was stable and they knew people well. Staff worked in a flexible way to enable people lead a full life.

Staff received training to ensure that they were kept up to date with best practice. Staff were motivated and supported. Staff had a good understanding of healthy eating and people had choice about what they ate. Staff worked with other professionals to meet people’s health needs.

People were supported to have control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff had been provided with training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and understood the principles of consent and best interests. The MCA and DoLS ensure that, where people lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions are made in their best interests according to a structured process.

People were supported by staff who knew them and with whom they had good relationships. Support was provided in a kind and compassionate way. Care plans were person centred and informative. Daily recordings were undertaken along with handovers to ensure good communication and continuity of care.

People had good access to their local community and a range of interesting activities. They were enabled to maintain relationships with those important to them.

The manager provided effective leadership and was visible and accessible. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the delivery of care and safety of the service. Actions were taken were areas for improvement were identified.

For a more comprehensive report regarding this service, please refer to the report of our last visit dated January 2016.

The inspection took place on 21 January 2016 and was unannounced.

The service provides residential care and support to two people with a learning disability.

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.

Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and the steps they should take if they suspected abuse. Risk assessments were in place to guide staff how to manage risks and reduce the likelihood of harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs. The staff team was stable and they worked in a flexible way, according to people’s needs and preferences.

Relationships were good and staff were well motivated and supported. Staff had a good understanding of healthy eating and people told us that the food was good. Staff sought advice appropriately from health professionals and followed their recommendations.

Staff had been provided with training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and understood the principles of consent and best interests. The MCA and DoLS ensure that, where people lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions are made in their best interests according to a structured process

Care plans identified people’s particular preferences and choices and were regularly reviewed. People’s independence was promoted and they were supported to play an active part in their local community and follow their own interests and hobbies.

The manager was visible and accessible. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the delivery and safety of the service.

During our Inspection we gathered evidence by speaking with people who use the service. People were able to tell us they enjoyed living at the home and appeared happy and relaxed.

We also spoke with staff and reviewed care records as well as staff records.

We reviewed the provision of food and drink, and people told us they liked the food.

We observed that people’s preferences and wishes were obtained and that care was person centred.

We examined recruitment processes to ensure these were providing staff suitable to perform their role.

We also looked at how records are maintained and stored.

We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by talking with people and noting how they interacted with other people living in the home and with staff.

During our visit we spoke with people who told us they liked living in the home. We saw that people smiled and appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff and others living there.

During our inspection we saw that people received good care. One person living in the home told us they liked living in the home and felt safe living there, another person said the home was lovely.