This inspection took place on the 17 & 18 October 2016 and was unannounced.

Pamela Barnett is a care home which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to sixteen people with a learning disability and physical disabilities. The home is a large detached building situated on a village style development together with other similar care homes run by the provider. It is situated some distance from local amenities and public transport. There are four self-contained flats and at the time of the inspection sixteen people were living in the home.

The registration certificate was on display and was up to date. There was a registered manager for the service who worked full time hours. 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 recruitment and selection process ensured people were supported by staff of good character. There was a sufficient amount of qualified and trained staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse.

People were provided with highly effective care from a core of dedicated staff who had received support through supervision, staff meetings and training. People’s care plans detailed how they wanted their needs to be met. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and specific behavioural and/or health related issues. They helped to promote people’s independence whilst minimising the risks. Staff treated people with kindness and respect and had regular contact with their families to make sure they were fully informed about the care and support their relative received.

The service had taken the necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights. They understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care.

Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and meet people’s individual needs. People received very good quality care. The provider had taken steps to periodically assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This was undertaken by the home manager and the deputy manager through internal audits, through care reviews and requesting feedback from people and their representatives.

We were unable to verbally communicate with people living in Pamela Barnett. Instead, we observed people’s interactions with care workers and spoke with relatives. One relative spoken with told us, “I think the home is fantastic.” Another told us, “the care workers are fantastic so attentive, I am very happy with the way x is treated.”

We saw people being treated with dignity and respect. Care workers interpreted people's non-verbal language and gestures effectively to enable appropriate support to be offered.

People were given a varied choice of suitable and nutritious meals and supported to eat where needed. Care workers monitored people’s weight and appropriate action was taken if change was noted. Food was prepared in accordance to people’s religious beliefs.

The home worked in cooperation with other providers of healthcare and supported people to obtain appropriate health and social care support.

The home was secure and care workers used an electronic number key pad to enter the building. Visitors were asked for identification before being allowed entry. Video entry had also been installed. We toured the building and found corridors and fire exits free of clutter and easily accessible. The home was clean and tidy and well maintained.

We viewed a range of records and found these contained appropriate information to protect people from unsafe or inappropriate care. These were securely kept and could be located promptly when requested.

We spent time observing how staff interacted with people using the service. We saw people making their choices known to staff and staff responding appropriately. As we were unable to speak to the people who lived at the home we spoke to their relatives. Relatives of people who live at the home told us the care was "absolutely fantastic" and the home provided "so many things she enjoys doing which make her life interesting".

The home was adequately maintained and was clean and tidy. However we found there were no restrictions on people entering the building. This meant the security of the premises was not suitable. Also some of the furniture in one of the lounge areas was worn and the waterproof covers had perished and bin liners were being used to cover seat cushions.

We looked at the system in place for dealing with complaints. We found people were aware of the complaints procedure. When complaints were made they were dealt with in accordance with the home's complaints procedure.

People living in Pamela Barnett were not able to verbally communicate with us in a way we understood. Instead of talking with people, we observed people’s interactions with the staff who supported them.

We observed that people were given a choice of meals and that staff provided support when necessary with eating and drinking. We saw positive interactions between staff and people living at Pamela Barnet. Staff recognised people’s non-verbal communications and were sensitive to avoid actions known to cause distress.

We observed staff caring for people in an engaged and supportive way.