Quarry Hill is a care home providing residential care to people with learning disabilities. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Quarry Hill provides respite [short stay] care on both a planned and short notice basis. The home is located in a residential area on the outskirts of Wath-Upon-Dearne close to shops and has good transport links. Overall the service supports approximately 49 people with respite care over the year. At the time of the inspection four people were staying at the home.

At the last inspection in August 2015 the service was rated ‘Good’ overall. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Quarry Hill Resource Centre’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

The service had a registered manager in 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. As the manager was also registered for two other council care homes they were supported by a deputy manager, who worked across two respite service organising the day to day running of each home.

People we spoke with said they enjoyed staying at the home and were very happy with the care and support they received. The relatives we spoke with also spoke very positively about the staff and the home in general.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were knowledgeable about keeping people safe and were able to explain the procedures to follow should any concerns be raised. Risk assessments had been completed to help keep people safe and encourage their independence.

Staff knew the people who stayed at the home very well and provided individualised care and support. People were enabled to continue with their usual routines, such as attending day centres and jobs, as well as taking part in their hobbies and interests.

There was a robust medication system in place which ensured people received their medications in a safe and timely way from staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

The recruitment system helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. A structured induction and training programme helped to ensure staff maintained and developed their knowledge and skills. However, information regarding the training completed by contracted staff not employed directly by the service had not been checked. The management team checked this following the inspection and have told us action was being taken to address any shortfalls.

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 support this practice.

People received a well-balanced diet that they were involved in choosing, shopping for and helping to prepare.

People’s assessed needs were checked and updated prior to each stay at the home. Information gathered was used to update their support plans and inform staff. Care files provided detailed information about the areas people needed support in and reflected their abilities and preferences, which enabled staff to provide individualised care.

The registered provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns and there was a structured system in place for recording the detail and outcome of any concerns raised. This was also available in an easy to read version that used pictures to help people understand the process.

There was a

Our inspection looked at our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

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

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

Is the service safe?

Staff were given appropriate guidance to ensure that they cared for people safely, and detailed risk assessments and records were in place to ensure people received the care and support they required. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment and were protected from the risk of infection.

Systems were in place for managers to monitor the quality of the service to ensure it operated safely.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

Care plans contained assessments of people’s care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person’s needs were met. Evidence we checked showed that staff were following people’s care plans and risk assessments.

Audits and reviews took place to ensure that care was delivered in a way that met people’s needs.

Is the service caring?

Relatives we spoke with praised the service highly. One said: “I don’t know where I’d be without it.” The provider’s surveys showed that people found staff to be caring and helpful. We observed that staff knew people’s needs well, and interacted warmly and considerately with people.

Is the service responsive?

Staff acted on people’s needs and in accordance with their wishes. Where people needed specific support or care, we saw evidence that this was delivered in accordance with people’s needs.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place, where both external and internal staff carried out an audit and monitoring programme. This was thorough, and where action was required we saw it was implemented.

We asked one person about their experience of receiving care at Quarry Hill Resource Centre. They told us: “They look after me, I always get what I want.” When we observed care taking place we saw that staff regularly checked people’s preferences and prompted them to make decisions about their care.

Where people had preferences or needs in relation to food and drink, staff took appropriate steps to ensure their needs were met.

People were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work and there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

People using the service were encouraged to give feedback and raise any complaints or concerns they had.

We saw that care was being provided in premises which were maintained to a high standard and fit for purpose. The provider had implemented some changes and improvements to ensure that the home met people's needs. People had been involved in making decisions about the decor in the home.

We spoke with people who were extremely positive about their experience of receiving a service at Quarry Hill Resource Centre. One person told us “it’s lovely; it’s like being on holiday”. Another person said “I like it here, we get to do lots of things”.

The inspection was unannounced, and was carried out over two days; 11 August and 20 August 2015. The home was previously inspected in May 2014, where no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

Quarry Hill Resource Centre is a respite service, providing short stay accommodation with personal care for adults with learning disabilities. Services can be provided to up to six people at any one time. As we inspected over two days, the number of people using the service at the time of the inspection varied over the two days.

Quarry Hill Resource Centre is in the Wath upon Dearne area of Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is a domestic-style dwelling in a quiet, residential area, but close to public transport links and the town centre.

At the time of the inspection, the service did not have registered manager. This was due to a restructure within the provider as a whole; the home’s most recent registered manager had cancelled their registration a month prior to the inspection, and plans were under way for a new manager to register. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During the inspection people told us, or indicated, that they were very happy with the service they received, and staff we spoke with and observed understood people’s needs and preferences extremely well. When we observed care taking place, staff demonstrated that they were patient and thoughtful in their interactions with people; they ensured people made their own decisions and that they were offered choices in ways they could understand.

The provider had effective systems in place to ensure people’s safety. This included staff’s knowledge and training in relation to safeguarding. Medicines were handled safely, by staff who had suitable training and exhibited good knowledge.

There were robust systems in place for involving people in decisions about their care and the way the service was run. Weekly meetings took place for people using the service to give feedback and develop their knowledge. Staff meetings discussed feedback from people using the service as a standing agenda item, so that staff were aware of people’s views.

We saw that the provider was responsive to people’s changing needs, and reviews of people’s care took place regularly, although, in some of the records we looked at, these hadn’t taken place at the frequency set out in the provider’s own guidelines.

Some of the people who were using the service around the time of the inspection did not have the mental capacity to make decisions in relation to aspects of their care. Staff spoke knowledgeably about how decisions were made in people’s best interests, however, there was little formal documentation of this, as required by the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

There had been some management changes, but staff, people’s relatives and people using the service told us they felt the service was well managed. There was comprehensive audit system in place, however, the audit system had not always identified shortfalls in some people’s records, or some reviews not taking place at the provider’s own designated frequency. There were formal quality assurance reviews where people using the service, and their relatives, could give feedback about the service.