This inspection took place on the 20 and 27 July 2016 and was unannounced. At the previous inspection visit which occurred in December 2013 all standards inspected were met.

Three people were currently living at the service which is registered to provide accommodation for up to four people with learning disabilities.

A registered manager was 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.

The person we spoke with said they felt safe living at the home and staff made them feel safe. Staff said they attended bi-annual safeguarding of vulnerable adults training. They said the procedures were updated to reflect recent changes. The staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of the safeguarding of vulnerable adults procedures. They were able to describe the types of abuse and the actions they must take.

Risks were assessed and staff were knowledgeable on the actions they must take to minimise risks. Staff told us risk assessments were discussed at team meetings and were developed by the registered manager. They said there was an expectation they read the risk assessments and sign to indicate their agreement with the plan of action.

Staffing levels were being maintained with agency and permanent staff. Staff said the same agency staff were used to ensure people had continuity of care. The rota in place showed two staff were on duty throughout the day and one member of staff at night.

Medicine systems were safe. Medication administration records (MAR) chart were signed by staff to indicate the medicines administered. Protocols were in place for medicines administered “when required” (PRN).

Staff were supported to develop their skills and their performance was monitored. Staff attended essential training as identified l by the provider and specific training to meet the changing needs of people. One to one meetings were regularly held with the line manager and at these meetings concerns, training and personal development was discussed.

People made decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application to the supervisory body for people subject to continuous supervision.

People were supported with their ongoing health care needs. Reports of healthcare visits were maintained and demonstrated people had access to specialists and had regular check-ups, for example optician and dental check-ups.

The two people we asked told us the staff were kind and caring. We saw staff interact with people and where people became agitated we observed staff used a calm approach to prevent any escalations. People were supported with their activities programme which including outings with keyworkers and to attend clubs.

Support plans were person centred and included the person’s ability to meet their needs and how staff were to assist them. For example, Daily routine plans described the person preferred times to rise, menu planning, activities and how staff were to assist them. Support plans were signed by the person to show their agreement. The person we asked told us records were kept about them.

Systems were in place to gather people's views during tenant meetings. Questionnaires were used to seek feedback for visitors. Systems and processes were used to assess, monitor and improve the quality, safety and welfare of people. There were systems of auditing which ensured people received appropriate care and treatment.

During the inspection we spoke with the three people using the service and eight members of staff.

People using the service were complimentary about the staff and the care provided. One person said "I wanted to move here, I like the staff". Another person nodded and smiled when asked if staff were kind. People said that they were given choices and described being able to influence how they spent their time. Staff were observed talking to people in a kind and respectful manner.

Peoples' needs were assessed and they were involved in the development their records. Care plans clearly identified their preferences and aspirations for the future. Appropriate formats were used to support decision-making and peoples' involvement. Staff also described how the service was person-centred.

Extensive building work was taking place to provide another bedroom and a new conservatory. Staff described the impact on people as 'minimal', and people using the service seemed unaffected at the time of our visit. Bedrooms were observed to be personalised and homely, and communal areas were attractively maintained.

Staff said that they were an "established team" and that they "all got on well." They described systems in place to support them, and said that the manager was supportive.

Records were safely stored, with lockable storage for confidential information. Care plans were evaluated and information was shared appropriately with other agencies.

There were three people living at this service. One person said they “liked it here”. Another person said they “like the house”. One person we asked gave a 'thumbs up' sign.

We saw that people in the service were respected. We observed staff spending time with people.

Information was clearly recorded in order to provide good continuity of support at all times. The care records were an accurate reflection of people's care needs and how those needs were to be met.

People told us they liked living at 17 Berryfield Road. They said they were able to do a lot of things for themselves, but received assistance when they needed it. This included support to go out and to manage their day to day arrangements.

People were part of the local community. They used a nearby shop and went into Bradford on Avon to use the town's facilities, including health services. People enjoyed outings, either on the bus or using the home’s vehicle. One person was looking forward to going to Bath the day after our visit.

People could decide what to do each day and received support to find new activities they would enjoy. Each person contributed to the household tasks, such as recycling, and there was a weekly list of jobs so that the work was shared out.

People told us they could make choices, for example, about the colour schemes for rooms, and the meals they would like to have. Each person had an individual plan which showed what they liked to do and the support that they wanted from staff. People could follow their individual interests, such as watching musicals and going to the cinema.

People’s care needs were met. Records were being kept, which provided good information about people’s health needs. People said that they could talk to staff if they had a concern. They could discuss issues and pass on their views at the ‘tenants’ meetings which were held regularly.

One person commented, ‘nice staff’, when we asked them what they liked best about the home. Overall, the service was meeting people’s needs well.