The Newland Hurst provides accommodation and care for up to 16 younger people with learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living in the home. At the last inspection, in November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care and there were enough staff to provide support to people to meet their needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. People made decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent. Systems were in place to support people if they needed help making key decisions about their life. Staff received training to meet the specific needs of people who lived at the home. People were supported to stay well and had access to health care services and enjoyed their mealtime experiences.

People had built caring relationships with the staff who supported them and were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions. People were treated with dignity and staff were caring.

People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care and support. Where people and their relatives had any concerns they were able to make a complaint and this was responded to.

People and staff were encouraged to make any suggestions to improve the care they received and how the home could be improved. The registered manager worked with people, their relatives and other organisations in an open way. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

The Newland Hurst provides accommodation and care for up to 16 younger people with learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living in the home. At the last inspection, in November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care and there were enough staff to provide support to people to meet their needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. People made decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent. Systems were in place to support people if they needed help making key decisions about their life. Staff received training to meet the specific needs of people who lived at the home. People were supported to stay well and had access to health care services and enjoyed their mealtime experiences.

People had built caring relationships with the staff who supported them and were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions. People were treated with dignity and staff were caring.

People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care and support. Where people and their relatives had any concerns they were able to make a complaint and this was responded to.

People and staff were encouraged to make any suggestions to improve the care they received and how the home could be improved. The registered manager worked with people, their relatives and other organisations in an open way. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

We inspected Newland Hurst and spoke with five people who lived at the home and spent time observing their care and treatment. We also looked at their care files and other supporting documents. We had discussions with the registered manager and four staff about how people were being supported. Staff told us that: “People can choose what they want to do, some like to keep busier than others”.

People’s needs had been assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Staff told us they were aware of each person’s needs and how to give care and support to meet those needs. When asked people told us: “Yes” they liked living there and “I like it here”.

We saw that people looked comfortable in their home and with the staff that supported them. We saw that staff were kind and caring in their approach to people who lived in the home.

The provider and registered manager of the home had taken steps to monitor and assess the quality of care and support provided to people who lived at the home.

We were not able to speak with most people during our inspection of the home because some were not present in the home and some people were not able to communicate with us in a meaningful way. We observed how staff interacted with people to support them in making decisions about their lifestyles. People responded in a positive way to staff suggestions. We spoke with a person who had recently been on holiday who told us they, "Went to Centre Parcs, enjoyed swimming most." They also said, "I go swimming on Tuesdays at the Leisure Centre."

The premises offer a generous range of communal rooms for people to choose from. There were three lounges, a large kitchen leading to an open dining room and a number of craft rooms that people were able to use when they wished to. Some bedrooms had en-suite facilities and most of the others had dedicated bathrooms. We asked a person what it was like to live at the home, they said, "I just like it."

People who lived at the home felt safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to respond to concerns. From our observations and discussions with staff we found that there were enough staff to meet peoples personal and health care needs as well as supporting to lead a varied lifestyle to suit their individual preferences.

The person we spoke with told us they knew how to make a complaint. Staff told us they assisted people who had communication difficulties in making a complaint.