Prince Regent House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

This inspection took place on 6, 10 and 16 April 2018 and was announced. At the last inspection in January 2016, the service was rated as overall Good but we found that most staff had not undertaken training about autism. During this inspection, we found improvements had been made.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Prince Regent House accommodates up to ten people with learning disabilities and autism in one adapted building across three floors. At the time of this inspection there were nine people using the service.

There was a registered manager at 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were carried out to mitigate the risks of harm people may face at home and in the community. There were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. People were protected from the spread of infection. The provider analysed accidents and incidents and used this information as a learning tool to improve the service.

People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the provider could meet their needs. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and annual appraisals to ensure they could deliver care effectively. People were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and to maintain their health. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the need to obtain consent before delivering care.

Staff described how they developed caring relationships with people and demonstrated they knew what people’s individual care needs were. People and their relatives were included in decision-making, care planning and care reviews. Staff were knowledgeable about equality and diversity. People were supported to maintain their independence and their privacy and dignity was promoted.

Care records were personalised and contained people’s preferences. The provider reviewed people’s care records regularly to ensure care was delivered appropriately. Staff understood how to deliver a personalised care service. The service had a complaints procedure and kept a record of compliments.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. The provider had systems in place to obtain feedback from people, relatives and professionals about the quality of the service in order to make improvements where needed. People had regular individual meetings with staff to ensure they were happy with the support they received. Staff had regular meetings to keep them updated on care practice. The provider carried out various quality assurance checks to identify areas for improvement. The provider had invested in new technology to enhance the delivery of care.

We have made two recommendations about effective medicine quality assurance and end of life care.

This inspection took place over two days on the 7 and 12 January 2016 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of this service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission.

The service provided support with personal care and accommodation to adults with learning disabilities who were on the autistic spectrum. They were registered to provide support for a maximum of ten people. Six people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 service had appropriate safeguarding procedures in place and staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding adults. Risk assessments were in place which included supporting people who exhibited behaviours that challenged the service in a safe manner. There were enough staff working at the service to promote people’s safety and pre-employment checks were carried out on prospective staff. Medicines were stored, recorded and administered in a safe manner.

Staff were supported in their role through regular training and supervision. However, most staff had not undertaken training about autism. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were able to make choices about their daily lives. This included choices over what they ate and drank. People had access to healthcare professionals as required.

People told us they were treated in a respectful manner by staff and we saw staff interacted with people in a caring way. The service sought to promote people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

People and relatives told us the service was meeting their needs. Care plans were in place which included personalised information about how to support individuals. People had access to a range of activities within the community. The service had a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to people.

People that used the service, their relatives and staff told us there was an open management culture at the service and that the management team were helpful and supportive. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place. Some of these included seeking the views of people that used the service.