Overndale House is registered to provide personal care for eight people with mental health needs. At the time of our visit there were four people living there. One person was visiting their family for the weekend.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Risks to people were assessed and where required a risk management plan was in place to support people manage an identified risk and keep the person safe.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and this ensured people were supported safely. People told us they felt safe living at the service.

The provider ensured that new staff completed an induction training programme which prepared them for their role. Training was completed in essential matters to ensure staff and people at the service were safe. Staff were supported through a supervision programme. Supervision is where staff meet one to one with their line manager to discuss their work and development.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to external health care professionals when required.

Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for.

Support provided to people met their needs. Supporting records highlighted information about what was important to people and how to support them. People were involved in activities of their choice.

There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Staff described the registered manager as supportive. Comments from people confirmed they were happy with the service and the support received.

The inspection took place on 12 May 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in July 2014, we asked the provider to take action to improve the service. This was because the system used to assess and monitor the quality of the service was not up to date. This meant the overall quality of service was not monitored effectively.

After the inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. At this inspection, we checked that they had followed their plan to confirm that they now met legal requirements. We found these actions had been completed and the quality of the service was properly monitored.

Overndale House is one of the services provided by Ocean Community Services Limited. The home is registered to provide personal care for eight people with mental health needs. At the time of our visit there were six people living there.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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 felt positive about the staff and the type of support they were given for their particular mental health needs. The staff treated people in a kind and caring way. People and staff interacted positively. People told us they felt able to approach staff whenever they needed to talk with them.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to be healthy and they were actively involved in menu planning and cooking. Menus were planned based on choices and individual preferences.

People’s mental health needs were identified and care was planned with their involvement. Staff knew how to support people in a way that met their needs. People were encouraged to make choices about their care and to become more independent in their lives.

Systems were in place so that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were implemented. This legislation protects people who lack capacity to make informed decisions in their lives. The provider had completed one application under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and This had been accepted and a DoLS had been in place for the person.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are authorised to make sure that people in care homes and hospitals are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom.

Staff were properly supervised and supported. They were also able to attend regular training relevant to the needs of people at the home.

The provider had a system that ensured complaints were investigated and responded to properly. People knew how to complain and had access to up to date information to help them to raise concerns.

Regular checks on the quality of care and service where carried out. When needed actions were implemented to improve the service .Checks had recently identified that certain care records needed to be updated This action had been implemented by the registered manager.

This inspection was undertaken by one Adult Social Care Inspector. At the time of the inspection two people were living at the home. The purpose of our inspection was to answer these key questions: Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that people were treated courteously by the staff who were on duty. We observed interactions between people at the home and the staff that were positive and respectful.

People told us they felt safe at the home. People were protected by safeguarding procedures that were robust and staff knew how to safeguard people.

There were policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to guide and inform the staff. The staff on duty were aware of this information and their responsibility to follow the policies and procedures in place.

People were protected by recruitment procedures that were robust and aimed to ensure that only staff who were safe and suitable were employed to work at Overndale House.

The manager had been working at the home since June 2014. They had ensured that the provider’s system for monitoring health and safety in the home was fully implemented. However, prior to this time health and safety audits had not been carried out consistently and regularly. This meant health and safety in the home could have been compromised because regular checks and audits were not being kept up to date.

Is the service effective?

The people who used the service we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support that they received.

We observed staff assisted people with a calm and attentive approach. We saw staff spent time with people who needed support due to their particular mental health needs.

The staff who we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of the complex mental health needs of the people who lived at Overndale House. The staff told us that they always followed the approaches that were set out in people’s care plans when they assisted them. For example, they told us they made sure they used a calm and clear approach with people who were agitated and angry in mood.

Care plans included evidence that they had been devised with the involvement of the person receiving care. We saw that people were involved, if they wanted to be, in devising their own plan of care to meet their needs. Care plans showed that they had been written with the involvement of the person concerned.

Is the service caring?

We observed the staff who were on duty responded to people in a way that was caring in manner. One person told us, "the staff are nice”.

We were told that one of the key aims for people who lived at the home was to devise a weekly programme of social and therapeutic activities to take part in. The staff told us this was considered to be a positive way to promote peoples independence and to give them structure in their daily life.

People were encouraged to take part in a varied range of therapeutic activities of their choosing. People told us that they also went out regularly with the support of staff. For example, on the day of our inspection two people went separately to Bristol Cathedral for the afternoon.

The staff we spoke with told us that they enjoyed and valued their work with people at the home. Each staff member told us they also enjoyed being able to make a difference and promote peoples independence in their daily life.

Is the service responsive?

Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and informative about how to support people with their mental health needs. For example, they included guidance and strategies for staff to follow to safely support people when they needed additional support due to changes in their mental health. The staff told us they used these approaches and they were effective responses when people’s mood and behaviours changed.

Regular ‘house meetings’ took place and the minutes confirmed people’s views were sought about the way the home was run and a number of different matters related to it. For example, we saw that people were regularly consulted about the “house rules” and we saw that where possible people’s views were included.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had been in post since June 2014 and had applied to be registered with CQC as required. . People spoke positively about the manager. One person told us that they were “very nice”. We saw people approached the manager when they were in their office. The manager was attentive and made time for each person who wanted to see them.

There was evidence that there were systems in place so that the quality of care that people received could be monitored. However, these quality monitoring systems had not been used effectively or kept up to date. For example, we found that daily checks of the safety and suitability of the environment had not been kept up to date and a medicines audit was incomplete. We also found that these had been only one formal provider visit to the service since January 2014 when people first moved into the home. This meant that the provider’s legal responsibility to monitor the quality of service to ensure that it was safe and suitable had not been fully carried out. This further meant people may not have been receiving a safe and suitable service if the necessary quality checks were not being carried out.