At our last inspection in January 2016 we had found that training in challenging behaviour had not been completed. This placed both the staff and people living at the service at risk. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found that the provider had completed their action plan and staff were all now trained to respond to behaviours that may challenge.

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.

Two people at the home reported an allegation to us during our visit .It was alleged a staff member could be harsh and abrasive towards people. The registered manager took action at the time of our visit to ensure that people were safe.

People were supported with their range of needs by enough staff to provide them with safe and suitable care. The staff rotas showed and the registered manager told us, that staffing numbers were increased when it was needed. If people’s needs changed due to being physically unwell, or there were extra community based events taking place there would be additional staff rostered to work.

The provider had a system in place to aim to protect the rights and freedoms of people at the home. The provider ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were implemented when needed. This legislation protects the rights of people who lack capacity to make informed decisions about different aspects of their lives.

Staff received support and training to carry out their roles effectively. The staff said they felt supported by the registered manager and deputy manager. People also told us they felt they could raise issues or concerns to management. There was a procedure in place to manage and respond to complaints. The complaints procedure helped to ensure that complaint would be taken seriously, investigated and resolution to the satisfaction of the person concerned.

People said that they liked the meal choices, and we saw they were encouraged to prepare and cook meals, snacks and drinks. Care plans showed how to support people who had specific nutritional needs.

We saw staff were caring and friendly in manner toward the people they supported. People told us they had had built up close and caring relationship’s with the staff. We saw staff ensured that privacy and dignity were respected. The staff provided people with explanations and information so they could make choices about aspects of their lives.

Care plans explained how to meet the care and support needs of the person that they were written about. If people chose to they were involved in the planning and writing of their care plans. This was to help ensure that people able to say how they wanted to be supported and in the ways they would prefer.

People were well supported to eat and drink enough to be healthy. To help people to be independent people were encouraged to buy and prepare meals and snacks with the support of staff.

People were able to take part in a variety of individual social activities both in and out of the home Some people told us that they went to college during the week as well as out for trips into the local area.

The provider had a system in place to help to ensure that complaints were investigated and responded to properly. People knew how to make their views known and they had up to date information available to help them to make a complaint. The registered manager knew people very well and they said that she was a” very nice person” who they could speak to at

We carried out this inspection on 26 January 2016 and this was an unannounced inspection. When Primrose Villa was last inspected in July 2014 no concerns were identified at the service.

Primrose Villa provides accommodation and personal care for up to seven people with a learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were seven people using the service.

A registered manager was in not post at the time of 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. The previous registered manager had left in November 2015. A manager was in post at Primrose Villa who was currently completing their registration process with the Commission.

Training in challenging behaviour had not been completed. This placed both the staff and people living at the service at risk.

The provider had not ensured that current medicines information was available for trained staff despite being previously advised. People’s photographs within their medicines folders were undated which had also been previously highlighted by a pharmacist in July 2015 as requiring action. Incidents and accidents were recorded however staff had inconsistently recorded matters.

Staff received support through training and supervision. People were supported with meals and drinks when required. People were involved in choosing their meals. Where needed, the service had made referrals to healthcare professionals and health plans were in place.

The manager was aware of their responsibilities in regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is a framework to approve the deprivation of liberty for a person when they lack the mental capacity to consent to treatment or care and need protecting from harm. Staff demonstrated a good working knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People felt safe and told us they had a good relationship with the staff. People’s identified risks were recorded and risk management guidance was available. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty and staff knew their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff recruitment procedures were safe and the environment and equipment was tested and serviced to ensure it was safe.

People said the staff at the service were kind. People had a keyworker to provide personalised support and we observed that interactions between staff and people were positive. People had their privacy respected and staff we spoke with understood the people they cared for well.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. People, their relatives or representatives were involved in care planning and reviews. The care plans we reviewed were person centred and contained unique information about people and how to meet their needs. People were given key information about the service. There were activities people could participate in if they chose. The provider had a complaints procedure and system in operation.

People knew who the manager was and who to approach if they had any concerns. Staff told us they were happy with their employment and felt supported by the manager. There were systems in operation to communicate key messages to staff. People had the chance to express their views and opinions.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

At the time of our inspection there were six people living in Primrose Villa. The home had lots of accessible information for people living at the home about the service they should expect to receive. People we spoke with were able to tell us what it was like living in Primrose Villa.

People’s comments included; “I go out on activities and I work in a charity shop”, “I get help with what I need, I like living here”, “I do Spanish on a Tuesday night” and another person told us they had recently been on holiday and how they ‘really enjoyed it’.

People who used the service also told us how they had a key to their own room and some people had a front door key.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. One person told us “we all share the household chores and do cooking one night a week”. Another person told us how they accessed a local community college course.

We asked staff what it was like to work at Primrose Villa and comments included; “we are a good team”, “I get enough support and training here” "Its a great place to work".

Throughout our inspection we saw that staff engaged with people positively and in a calm manner. People were observed moving freely around the home and taking part in ‘activities of daily living’. For example, we observed people being supported with their washing and household chores, before they went out for the day on chosen activities.

At the time of our visit there were six people living at Primrose Villa. Not everyone was able to discuss their experience with us verbally. However, we made observations of their care, spoke with support staff and observed staff interactions with people that used the service.

We spoke with four people that use the service, four members of staff and one relative throughout the inspection to gain an understanding of the service being offered to people.

Some people we spoke with told us “I’ve lived here a couple of years, its lovely” “I’m going to college to do money skills, French and cooking, I also have a job”. Other comments include; “I like it here, I like helping”, “I went to Spain last year it was great!” “It’s more independent living that’s why I moved here”.

Staff told us they encourage people to be as independent as possible and they encourage people to access local community services and activities.

We asked staff what it was like to work at Primrose Villa and comments included; “There’s always senior support available”, “We are a good team”, “I love it it’s very meaningful work”.

Throughout our inspection we saw that staff engaged with people positively in a calm and relaxed manner. People were relaxed and engaged in their own environment.

We set out to answer our five questions during our inspection; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

At the time of our inspection there were seven people living permanently in the home. We observed the care being provided to people in the communal areas of the home and examined the care documentation and supporting records. We spoke with three people that used the service who were able to tell us of their experiences and we spoke with two members of staff to gain their understanding of how they met the needs of people living in the home.

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

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

Is it safe?

Staffing was maintained at safe levels. During our inspection people's needs were responded to in a timely manner. Staff received training in safeguarding adults. People we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home and knew who to tell if they didn’t. One person told us “we always discuss it at our meetings. If I wasn’t happy I would tell staff and my Mum”.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff had a good understanding of who they needed to contact should they have any concerns around people's welfare.

People who used the service were cared for by staff who knew how to protect them from the risk of abuse. The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (Dols). The senior member of staff confirmed no one currently living in the home was subject to such an application. However relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application may be required. This meant that people were safeguarded from abuse.

Is it caring?

People were supported by sensitive and attentive staff. Comments we received from people living in the home were positive. Comments included: “I went to Weymouth I was very happy”. “I chose the colour of my bedroom and I have a new mirror. Staff help me they are nice”.

We saw that care staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We spent time in the communal lounge observing interactions between staff and people that used the service.

The observations we made demonstrated staff supported people in a calm unhurried manner, using communication methods conducive with their individual assessed needs.

Is it effective?

We found people's health and care needs were assessed with them and reviewed regularly. Care plans provided guidance for staff to follow to ensure people's individual specific needs were met. Care plans were reflective of people's current level of need.

Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People also had supplementary files that held detailed information about their health needs and detailed any changes. This information travelled with the person when they visited health professionals. People told us their keyworker met with them on a monthly basis and this was evidenced in people’s files.

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. People we spoke with confirmed this.

Is it responsive?

People received co-ordinated care. We saw evidence in people's care plans that demonstrated people had been visited by their GP and other health care professionals. Records demonstrated they visited on a regular basis by external health and social care professionals as required.

Evidence was viewed in people's care documentation to evidence that should people experience any changes in their needs, professional advice was sought swiftly to ensure people's care and welfare was maintained.

Is it well led?

A stable management team was in place. We were told the registered manager was approachable and staff we spoke with felt supported by the whole management team.

People that used the service, their relatives and external professionals completed a satisfaction survey once a year. Comments we viewed were positive from people that used the service. Comments included: “I enjoy living in Primrose Villa as I have my friends here”. “Staff are very helpful and support me when I need it”.

The senior person told us if any concerns were raised these would be addressed promptly and people were encouraged to raise any concerns or worries on a daily basis and at residents meetings called ‘your voice’. Minutes we viewed confirmed this.