This inspection took place on 2 March 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The service provides accommodation and support for up to four people with a mild learning disability or other associated conditions. At the time of the inspection there were two people living in the home. Both people were relatively independent but required prompting with their personal care needs. Staff supported people with other daily living routines such as cleaning, cooking and transport. People generally preferred to be supported by staff when they went out into the community to help keep them safe from harm or abuse.

The service had a registered manager. 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 registered manager said their service philosophy was “To ensure people are looked after to the n’th degree and are happy, safe and well”. People, relatives and staff all said the registered manager was very caring, supportive, and approachable. This was summed up by a member of staff who told us “She is approachable, positive, kind and caring. She wants the best for the people we support. She treats people like her own family. It’s like a family home not just a place to live”. A person who lived in the home said “I am enjoying it here and don’t have any problems”. A relative told us “I’m very pleased where [person’s name] is at the moment, he’s very settled”.

There was a friendly family atmosphere in the home and everyone got on well together. All of the interactions we observed between people and staff were caring and supportive. It was clear the registered manager and staff were very fond of the people who lived in the home and wanted the best for them. In turn, people told us they really liked the registered manager and all of the staff.

People were supported to visit relatives, access the community and participate in a wide range of social and leisure activities of their choice on a regular basis.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and had choice and control over their daily routines. Staff respected and acted on the decisions people made. The service knew how to protect people’s rights if they lacked the mental capacity to make certain important decisions about their care and welfare.

The service employed a small close knit team of part-time staff who were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs and preferences. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe. Staff received training and supervision to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to provide the care and support needed.

The service used a mix of informal and semi-structured quality assurance processes to help maintain and improve the quality and safety of its service provision.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service caring?

People who lived in the home told us the manager and staff were very caring and supportive. They said they were very fond of the manager and they got on well with the other staff.

We observed there was a friendly family atmosphere in the home and everyone appeared to get on well together. All of the interactions we observed between people and staff were caring and supportive.

The manager and staff spoke to people in a polite friendly manner and they treated people with dignity and respect. They knocked on people’s doors and gained permission before entering. This showed they respected people’s privacy. People were allowed their own space but staff were on hand when they were needed.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive to people’s needs and preferences. We spoke with two people who lived in the home. They told us they were able to make their own daily living choices such as meal choices and activities. One person said “I decide what I want to do each day. I like having something to do and I like to keep busy doing my jobs around the house and in the garden”. The other person said “We can decide to stay in our room or meet in the lounge, whatever we want”.

The manager said they had conversations with each of the individuals on a daily basis as well as more structured individual care plan review sessions. This enabled people to discuss any aspects of their care and to express their views and preferences. People also met together at monthly meetings to discuss issues of general interest such as menu choices, future trips, leisure and social activities.

We saw care plans reflected people’s personal choices such as when they preferred to get up and go to bed, their hobbies and leisure interests. This information helped the service to plan ways of improving people’s quality of life. For example, one person was a very keen football fan and had been supported to go to watch their favourite premier league football team.

The manager said feedback from relatives and visiting professionals also played an important part in ensuring people’s care and support needs were met.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and the manager and staff treated them well. One person said “X (the manager) looks after us and I feel safe here”. The other person said “All the staff are nice to us. Nobody ever treats me badly”. People told us they would speak with the manager, their relatives or their social worker if they had concerns.

Staff knew about the different types of abuse, how to recognise the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. They said the manager had provided in-house training in protecting vulnerable adults from abuse. Staff knew to call social services or the police if they suspected any abuse.

We saw relevant employment and criminal record checks were carried out when new staff were recruited. This helped to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. We saw care plans included a range of individual risk assessments and actions for managing these risks. This included risks associated with people’s mobility needs, traffic awareness, food and drinks preparation.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The provider had an emergency evacuation plan and monthly fire drills took place. Staff received first aid training and they were instructed to call the emergency services if they had any concerns.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. The manager said they had never needed to make a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application. However, the manager was aware of the circumstances when an application should be made and the procedures to follow. This helped ensure people’s freedom and human rights were protected.

Is the service effective?

The service supported people who were relatively independent but needed some prompting and support with daily living skills. The home was effective in meeting these support needs.

People who lived in the home told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person said “I’m happy to stay here, it’s very good. If I need to see the doctor, X (the manager) takes me”. The other person said “If I need anything I just ask X (the manager) and they always sort it for me”.

The manager said they encouraged people to be as independent as they were able, both in the home and in the wider community. People told us they regularly went out into the community to work, swimming, shopping, meals, social nights out and shows. One person said “I go to work three days a week and we usually go out somewhere a couple of times a week”.

Care plans contained information about meeting people’s health and support needs as well as their personal preferences. We saw up to date records of appointments with health care professionals, including the GP, speech and language therapist, podiatrist and dentist.

The manager said they ensured staff were able to carry out their roles competently by providing regular staff supervision and training. One member of support staff had worked in a larger residential care home where they had obtained a national vocational qualification level 2 in health and social care. This meant staff had relevant qualifications and training to carry out their roles to an appropriate standard.

The provider identified, assessed and managed risks to the health, safety and welfare of people. In addition to individual risk assessments in people’s care plans we saw environmental risk assessments for areas such as fire safety and domestic water temperatures. The home had recently received a local authority 5 star environmental health rating which demonstrated good hygiene and catering standards.

Is the service well led?

This was a small homely service run in a way that met the needs of the people who lived in the home. The manager was clearly committed to achieving the best lifestyle and outcomes for the people in their care.

An annual satisfaction questionnaire was given to people who lived in the home and their relatives. We saw the returned questionnaires from the January 2014 survey and each rated the service as excellent.

The manager was the owner of the home and lived on the premises. They were registered with the Care Quality Commission as the registered manager for the service.

We could tell from our discussions with the manager and staff that they were knowledgeable about each individual’s support needs and personal preferences.

The member of staff we spoke with said the manager was always available for support and advice. They said “The manager is wonderful and very easy to get along with. We all get on pretty well together”. They said the manager and their colleague were extremely supportive and they all worked well together as a small dedicated team. This ensured people who lived in the home were appropriately supported at all times.

People who lived in the home said their privacy and dignity was respected by everyone in the home. One person said the owner “was very good and the other staff are alright too”. People also told us they were able to make their own choices about their daily living activities.

From our observations and conversations with the people who lived in the home they appeared very satisfied with the care and support they received. One person said “It’s alright, I’d like to stay here” and another said “They look after me. Fizz (the owner) is very good to me”.

The home and gardens were well maintained and provided suitable accommodation for the people who lived there. However, there was no lift to the first floor bedrooms which meant they were not suitable for people with mobility difficulties. Protective safety measures and emergency evacuation procedures were in place and practised.

We found the staffing arrangements were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who lived in the home. The home cared for a small number of people who were relatively independent but needed support and prompting with daily living activities.

People said they would be comfortable speaking with the owner if they were unhappy about their care. One person said “She has always said I can talk to her about anything”. The owner said they had not received any complaints. However, they had a complaints policy to ensure if complaints were received they were recorded and fully investigated.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to four people. On the day of our inspection just one person with care needs lived at the home. We spoke with the person, the home owner, a new member of staff and visitors. We also observed how the owner and other staff supported and interacted with the person who lived in the home.

The person who lived in the home appeared happy and content and told us that “everything was fine”. We observed that they were relaxed and comfortable in the company of the home owner and the other staff member present on the day of our inspection.

They told us they attended a local social club, the cinema and other events. They said “I play snooker, pool and bingo. I love it”. They told us how excited they were about plans to take them to watch their favourite Premier League football team.

The person who lived in the home looked well cared for and told us they were happy with the way the owner and other staff looked after their needs. They told us “I like living here. Everyone’s OK”. When asked if people treated them properly they replied “Of course they do”.

We found that accurate and up to date information was available about the person and how to assist them. The other records relevant to the management of the service were accurate and fit for purpose.

There was only one person living in the home at the time of our inspection. Another person had recently moved because their behaviour had become too challenging for the home to manage. We were told that other former residents had returned to their family homes in the local area after developing improved skills for living while staying at Perry Court. They still kept in touch and visited the home from time to time.

We observed that the relationship between the home owner who was also the main carer and the person living in the home was warm, respectful and caring. The person told us, “Me and Fizz (the owner’s nickname) get on really well” and “She’s a very good cook”. They also told us that they got on with the other volunteer staff who worked at the home.

Apart from the owner’s lounge/office area the house was tidy and clean. The person’s bedroom was personalised to suit their own taste and they said that their likes and leisure interests were all catered for by the home. They went to work three days a week and said they really enjoyed this experience, “I’ve got loads of friends there”. They told us that the owner regularly took them to the local leisure centre, to a local working man’s club, the cinema and other external shows and events.

They said they were happy living in the home and were looked after well, “I am happy here” and “I can talk to everyone”. Although they were not personally involved they had witnessed the aggressive incident between a previous resident and one of the volunteer carers. They said they were upset by this at the time but did not have any worries about their own care and welfare.

We observed that the environment at Perry Court was homely and the atmosphere was relaxed.