This inspection was carried out on the 13 January 2017. Parklands is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of four adults with a learning disability. The provider is also registered to provide the regulated activity of personal care acting as a domiciliary care agency. A fifth bedroom is used by a supported living client. People living at the service may have a learning disability including autism. Some of the people who live there also have physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection the service provided care to four people. All of the people and the staff have been at the service for a number of years.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

There were enough staff to support the needs of people including those that required one to one support.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. People told us that they felt safe and relatives had peace of mind that their family members were looked after in a safe environment.

Staff understood the risks to people. Staff encouraged and supported people to lead their lives as independently as possible whilst ensuring they were kept safe. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way and those that could were encouraged and supported to manage their own medicines.

Staff receiving appropriate training and supervision to provide effective care to people.

People's human rights were protected because the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) were being followed. MCA assessments were completed where needed. Staff understood MCA and why it was important to understand if people had capacity to make decisions.

People enjoyed the food at the service. Staff supported people’s nutritional and hydration needs and people accessed health care professionals when needed.

Staff were caring and considerate to people’s needs. People said that staff were caring and kind to them and treated them with dignity. People and relatives were involved in their care planning and the care that was provided was person centred.

Care plans were detailed and provided guidance to staff on best to support people. Staff communicated with each other the changes to people care.

People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities, education and work opportunities. People said that they enjoyed going out and lived their lives to the fullest.

Systems were in place if complaints and concerns were received. The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the care provided. The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people's involvement in the improvement of the service.

People told us the staff were friendly and management were always approachable. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the service. Staff told us they would report any concerns to their manager. Staff felt that management were very supportive and staff felt valued.

The registered manager had informed the CQC of significant events. Records were accurate and kept securely.

During our visit we met and spoke with two people who used the service. We also spoke with the registered manager, one care staff and one relative. On the day of our inspection we also inspected the domiciliary care agency. We were told that the domiciliary care agency was providing personal care to one person who lived in the same bungalow but had a separate room which had been used as supported living.

Our observations of staff practice showed that people were receiving effective, safe and appropriate care, which was designed to meet their specific needs. We saw that people felt comfortable in approaching staff and asking for assistance. People were relaxed and content in their surroundings. Staff engaged positively with people using the service to encourage them to communicate their consent, wishes and choices.

People told us that staff treated them with respect and promoted their privacy. They told us they felt they would be listened to if they raised any concerns. People told us that staff supported them to visit friends and families.

We spoke with people who used the service and their commented were, “I like living here as it is easy for me to walk around in this bungalow”, “I feel safe in here.”, “I love it here it is like home from home.”, “Staff support me to go out very often, I like going to cinema and I went home for Christmas.”

Relative that we spoke with told us. “It is very good here, staff care for my relative very well and management is very supportive.”

On the day of our inspection we saw one person who used the service was celebrating their birthday with friends and family.

We found that the provider had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service they provided and we found that people were generally satisfied with the care and treatment they received.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

Two of the people who used the service were at home during our visit. The told us that they had been at the home for a long time and that they, “love the home” and “I love the staff”.

Records showed that people living in the home were predominately younger adults and that they took part in a range of planned meaningful activities both inside the home and in the wider community.

We found the staff to be knowledgeable about the people that they cared for. They demonstrated that they understood their care needs and supported them to live independent lives.

We found that the provider kept accurate and up to date records and that they were securely held.

Most of the people who use the service were not at home during the site visit. So we cannot report what people said. Records showed people living in the home were predominantly younger adults who were busy on a daily basis, taking part in a range of planned and meaningful activities in line with their individual plan of care. One resident told us briefly before leaving the home for a planned activity that, “its lovely here.” The inspector spoke at length with the provider and the registered manager.