Northfield House provides accommodation with personal care for up to 11 people. The home specialises in providing a service to adults who have a learning disability or associated mental health needs. The home is staffed 24 hours a day.

At the time of the inspection there were 11 people living at the home.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

The service continued to be a safe place for people to live. People were supported by adequate numbers of staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse. There were systems in place to identify and manage risks. People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. A person who lived at the home said “I love the staff and they make me feel very safe.” Another person said “I feel very safe. This is my home.”

People continued to receive effective care. People were supported by staff who were well trained and competent in their roles. People’s health care needs were monitored and met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The home continued to provide a caring service to people. People were supported by caring and compassionate staff. The atmosphere in the home was very happy and relaxed. One person who lived there said “The staff are like my family and friends. It really feels like my home. I am so, so happy.” Another person said “This is the best home ever. I love it here.”

People received a service which was outstandingly responsive to their needs and preferences. People were supported to have an excellent quality of life and had their care needs met in a compassionate, caring and timely way. There was a strong emphasis on enabling people to live their lives to the full and to be fully involved in all aspects of the care and support they received. Care plans were person centred and reflected what was important to each person. Routines in the home were very flexible and were determined by the preferences of the people who lived there. For example staff responded to impromptu requests from people to go out and people were supported to choose and prepare their lunch at a time which suited them. A member of staff told us “The [people who live at the home] have such a fantastic life. It’s so person centred here with a real family atmosphere. It’s all about them and supporting them to do as much as they possibly can.”

A person who lived at the home told us about their achievements. They told us how staff had supported them to gain independence. They explained they had achieved a “lifetime goal” and they now accessed the community independently. The person had also been supported to manage their own medicines. They told us “I never thought it would be possible.” Another person explained how their confidence had grown after staff had supported them to lose a significant amount of weight.

People led a busy life and enjoyed a range of activities, social events and holidays. Two people attended college and two people had meaningful and important roles within the organisation. One person explained “I do unannounced visits to other Voyage homes. I love it and feel I make a difference to other service users lives because I look at things from my point of view being disabled.” Another person had gained a position as a national representative. They were one of 10 individuals who were chosen throughout the whole of Voyage Care to meet and help shape the future of the organisation. Three people who lived at the home were involved in regular broadcasts on a local radio show.

The service continued to be well led. The registered manager was very visible in the home and knew people very well. Staff morale was extremely good which impacted posit

This inspection took place on 30 July 2015 and was an unannounced inspection.

Northfield House is a large detached property which can accommodate up to 10 people. The home specialises in providing care and support to adults who have a learning disability, autism and/or a physical disability. All bedrooms are for single occupancy and the home is staffed 24 hours a day.

The majority of the people who lived at Northfield House were able to tell us about their experiences of life at the home. We also used our observations of care and our discussions with staff to help form our judgements.

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.

People were involved in all aspects of life in the home and their views were valued by the service. Staff supported people to develop and maintain independent living skills and to live their life to the full. Risk assessments detailed the potential risks and provided information about how to support the individual to make sure risks were minimised.

Staff morale was good and people were comfortable with the staff who supported them. The atmosphere in the home was very relaxed with lots of laughter and friendly banter. People had nothing but praise about the staff team. One person said “The staff are the best.” Another person said “All the staff are really lovely. I like them all very much. We have a laugh.”

Staffing levels were good and people also received good support from health and social care professionals. Staff were confident and competent when assisting and interacting with people and it was evident staff knew people well.

People were unable to look after their own medicines. Staff made sure medicines were stored securely and there were sufficient supplies of medicines. People received their medicines when they needed them.

The registered manager had a clear vision for the home and the people who lived there. They told us they wanted to ensure people were supported to develop their skills and promote their independence. Staff told us they were proud of the standard of care they provided to people. They spoke with kindness and compassion when they told us about the people they supported.

People were supported to eat well in accordance with their preferences and needs. There was a varied menu which had been developed with the people who lived at the home.

Routines in the home were flexible and were based around the needs and preferences of the people who lived there. People were able to plan their day with staff and they were supported to access a range of social and leisure activities in the home and local community.

The service made sure staff completed appropriate training so they could meet the needs of the people they supported. The knowledge, skills and competency of staff were regularly monitored through supervisions and observation of their practice. Staff told us they felt well supported and received the training they needed.

There were systems in place to monitor health and safety and the quality of the service provided to people.

This service was inspected by a single adult social care inspector. In order to answer the questions below we spoke with the registered manager and three members of staff, and six people in the service. We also reviewed three people’s care records.

If you wish to look at our findings in detail please see the full report.

Is the service safe?

The environment was clean.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of the people in the service.

People told us that they felt safe.

Staff personnel records contained all information required, which meant that staff were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support people in the service.

Staff were trained to recognise safeguarding alerts and were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.

The premises are secure from anyone entering unannounced. Care records were secure and only accessed by authorised people.

Is the service effective?

People can be reassured that their needs will be met at this service.

Each person had a care plan that detailed their support needs. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and they knew people in the service well.

People told us that they were happy with the staff support that was in place. Staff had a good understanding of people’s care and welfare and knew people well.

There was a safe procedure for recruiting staff and for making sure they had the skills and knowledge to support people in this service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind staff. Staff demonstrated good humour and respect when supporting people.

People told us they were able to do things as they wished. Our observations throughout the visit confirmed this.

A survey that had been sent to families was complimentary.

Is the service responsive?

People’s support needs were always assessed before they were admitted to the service. The service worked well to ensure people were supported in the best possible way.

Care records reflected people’s individual needs and described staff support in accordance with people’s wishes.

People told us they met with their key workers once a month to update their care plans if necessary.

People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with friends and relatives whenever possible.

Is the service well-led?

Clear quality assurance processes were in place, including regular audits, monitoring of complaints and surveys.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and there were quality assurance processes in place. Staff were regularly supervised by senior staff.

All care records we viewed were accurate, current and complete. The service had a robust system in place to respond to complaints and concerns.

People’s personal care records were accurate and complete. All risks had been assessed, and safeguards put in place where necessary.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.