Orla House is located in a suburban area close to the city of Nottingham. The home is registered to provide accommodation and non-nursing personal care for up to 14 people. This is for people with a learning disability, autism or physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living at the home.

At the last inspection, in March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. They were supported by staff who were aware of their role and responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm.

Risks relating to people’s needs including the environment, had been assessed and planned for and were regularly monitored and reviewed. Procedures were in place to report any accidents and incidents and these were investigated and acted upon appropriately.

Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their individual needs. People were supported to receive their medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles.

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 support this practice. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People continued to receive good care from staff that they had developed positive relationships with. Staff were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and dignity. Staff supported people to maximise their independence. People had access to information about independent advocacy should they have required this support. People were involved in discussions and decisions as fully as possible about how they received their care and support.

People continued to receive a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Staff had information available to support them to provide an individualised service based on people’s needs, preferences, routines and what was important to them. The provider’s complaints policy and procedure had been made available for people.

The service continued to be well-led. People, relative’s and external health and social care professionals were positive that the leadership was good. Communication was open and transparent.

The provider had effective arrangements for monitoring and assessing the quality and safety of care and support people experienced. The provider had quality assurance processes in place that encouraged people to give feedback about the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We spoke with two people using the service. They told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. They told us staff asked them about their preferences and discussed their care with them. One person told us it was “fantastic” living at Orla House and another person said, “I’m happy here.” They told us they received the care they needed.

We spoke with two relatives. They told us their relatives’ privacy and dignity were respected. They told us the care home kept them informed and involved in decisions about their relatives’ care. They told us the care met their relatives’ needs. One relative said, “I’m happy about the care [their relative] is given.” Another relative said, “I think they do magnificently” and told us their relative was, “Very well cared for.”

During our visit we saw that staff were kind and supportive and communicated with people using the service in a respectful manner.

People using the service told us they were happy with their bedrooms and expressed no concerns about the building.

We found staff received an induction, supervision, training and appraisals.

One person using the service told us they would talk to the manager if they wanted to make a complaint, but told us they had no concerns.

Relatives told us they had never had to make a complaint, but would contact the manager if they wanted to. They told us they felt they would be listened to if they raised any concerns.

We carried out a responsive review inspection because we had concerns that we had not visited since April 2008.

At the time of our visit people who use services were out on activities in the community therefore we did not speak with people who use services. We spoke with their relatives, representatives and with staff. We were told that people who lived at this care home had problems with their communication which would make gaining their views difficult.

We spoke with 5 relatives or representatives of people using the service. Each of them told us that they were happy with the care provided at this home.

Orla House is located in a suburban area close to the city of Nottingham. The home is registered to provide accommodation and non-nursing personal care for up to 14 people. This is for people with a learning disability, autism or physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living at the home.

At the last inspection, in March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. They were supported by staff who were aware of their role and responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm.

Risks relating to people’s needs including the environment, had been assessed and planned for and were regularly monitored and reviewed. Procedures were in place to report any accidents and incidents and these were investigated and acted upon appropriately.

Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their individual needs. People were supported to receive their medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles.

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 support this practice. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People continued to receive good care from staff that they had developed positive relationships with. Staff were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and dignity. Staff supported people to maximise their independence. People had access to information about independent advocacy should they have required this support. People were involved in discussions and decisions as fully as possible about how they received their care and support.

People continued to receive a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Staff had information available to support them to provide an individualised service based on people’s needs, preferences, routines and what was important to them. The provider’s complaints policy and procedure had been made available for people.

The service continued to be well-led. People, relative’s and external health and social care professionals were positive that the leadership was good. Communication was open and transparent.

The provider had effective arrangements for monitoring and assessing the quality and safety of care and support people experienced. The provider had quality assurance processes in place that encouraged people to give feedback about the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.