Phoenix House offers accommodation and support to nine people who have learning and associated physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection nine people were living at Phoenix House.

The home is purpose built, set in a village location and within easy reach of several larger towns. Accommodation was provided on one floor and people had their own en-suite bedrooms and spacious shared areas to spend time in.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

A registered manager was employed by the service and was present throughout our inspection. 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 were protected against the risks of potential harm or abuse. Staff had received relevant training and understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people from abuse and harm.

Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure staff were of good character and suitable for their role and people were supported by sufficient numbers of staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs.

Risks to people and their safety had been identified and actions taken to minimise these. Risk management plans were in place to ensure people received safe and appropriate care.

People’s medicines were managed safely. People’s health care needs were managed effectively in response to their changing needs and had access to health and social care professionals when required.

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 supported this practice.

People were treated with compassion and kindness in their day to day care. Staff worked well together and had a good understanding of people’s needs including how they expressed their individual needs and preferences.

Care plans were personalised and contained detailed information about the person’s preferences, likes, dislikes and what was important to them. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs and acted in accordance with the guidance in their care plans.

People had a range of activities they could be involved in which they said they enjoyed. People were supported to form bonds with each other and had good links to the community.

There were quality assurance systems in place which enabled the provider and registered manager to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service people received.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 4 March 2015.

The service offers accommodation and support to nine people who have learning and associated physical disabilities. The home is purpose built, set in a village location within easy reach of several larger towns. Accommodation is provided on one floor. Individuals have their own en-suite bedrooms and there are spacious shared areas.

There is a registered manager running the home. 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, staff and visitors to the home were kept as safe as possible by using a variety of methods. Staff were trained in and understood how to protect people in their care from harm or abuse. Relatives of people who use the service told us they felt their family members were very safe and they could talk to staff and the registered manager about any concerns or worries they had. Individual and general risks to people were identified and managed appropriately. The home had a robust recruitment process to try to ensure the staff they employed were suitable and safe to work there. Staff members had an in-depth knowledge of people and their needs. The staff team were well supported by the registered and area managers to ensure they were able to offer good quality care to people.

The service 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. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. DoLS provide a lawful way to deprive someone of their liberty, provided it is in their own best interests or is necessary to keep them from harm. They had taken any necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights.

People were helped to look after their health. Staff were skilled in using individual’s specific communication methods. They helped them to make as many decisions for themselves as they could. People were encouraged to be as independent as they were able to be, as safely as possible. The house was well kept, as homely as possible and very clean and comfortable. People’s rooms were specifically adapted to meet their needs and reflected their individual preferences and tastes.

People were given the opportunity to participate in a variety of activities both individually and with others. The service provided two specially adapted minibuses to enable people to go to activities in the nearby towns. People were treated with dignity and respect at all times. They were as involved as possible in all aspects of their daily life.

Staff and relatives of people who live in the home told us the home was very well managed with an open and positive culture. People and staff told us the registered manager was very approachable and was willing to listen and make any necessary changes to improve things for people.

The people who lived at the home were not able to tell us about their experiences of the home because of their complex learning disabilities. One person was able to give us some information about their experiences of living at the home. We were told they made decisions such as when to contact relatives and, with support from the staff, we were told how they made decisions. We were told there was enough staff for them to undertake activities, for example, maintaining contact with family and attending college courses. This person told us the staff encouraged them to prepare their breakfast and lunch. When we asked one person who they would tell if they were not happy they said they would tell the manager.

We saw one person use sign language to thank the staff that served them their meal. Staff offered alternatives when two people refused the refreshment provided. The staff we observed engaged with people they spoke to people at eye level and we heard one member of staff tell the person the meal they were about to eat.

Staff used adapted cutlery to enable people to be independent when they were eating their meal. However, staff did not always tell people the tasks they were about to perform. For example, where they were going before they moved people away in their wheelchair.

We saw staff closely monitored people who were exhibiting signs of seizure activity.

We saw people were being supported by the staff and they were not waiting for attention from the staff. Staff told us the staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs. They told us staffing levels were to be increased and regular agency staff was being used until more staff were recruited.

Complaints’ cards were available in the foyer of the property which told representatives of people who lived at the home and visitors how to complain. Annual surveys were also used to ensure relatives, visitors to the home, social and healthcare professionals knew how to make complaints.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We observed staff interacting and communicating effectively with people. We saw people undertaking activities and displaying pleasure in them.

We spoke to staff and they demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the people living at the service. This was confirmed by our observations and what we were told by a carer.

Records showed that people had been supported and encouraged to make decisions about their lives. We saw that people or their representatives had been involved in care planning and support. When needs changed, we found that records had been updated.

Staff spoken with showed understanding of how to safeguard from harm. Training records showed that staff received regular training to update their them on safeguarding.

Training records showed that staff were suitably trained and supported, including training specific to the people in the service.

Records showed the provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the service. We saw that people and their representatives were asked their views about the home in surveys. We saw records that showed these surveys had been acted upon.

We noted that some pictures in the dining room to inform people about choices were small. This meant that some people might not be able to see this information.

People we spoke to told us that they were happy with the care provided at Phoenix house. People who were unable to communicate vocally appeared happy and relaxed. We saw staff members interact well with people throughout the day. Staff had effective systems in place for communicating with people.

We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to enable people to live the lives they chose. Systems were in place to maintain people’s health, safety and welfare. People living at the home and their representatives were able to share their views and feel confident that they would be listened to.