This inspection took place on 11 January 2016 and was unannounced.

Riviera Court supports adults with a range of complex mental health needs. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 adults. At the time of the inspection there were 21 people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 well cared for at Riviera Court. One person told us; “I had thought of moving on, but you won’t get better than the people here”. Interactions we observed between people and staff were kind, compassionate and caring. People were treated with respect and their confidentiality was upheld. One external health professional told us; “Standards of care seem very high”.

Relatives were made to feel important and were warmly welcomed at the service. Staff and managers were considerate towards them and ensured they felt looked after and valued. Relatives were kept informed of any changes and were able to have an open and honest dialogue with staff and managers.

The service was well led. Staff said they felt valued and supported by their colleagues and the managers. The registered manager had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of the service from a variety of sources including people who used the service, relatives and other agencies. Learning from quality audits, incidents, concerns and complaints was used to help drive continuous improvement across the service.

Systems were in place to deal promptly and appropriately to any complaints or concerns. The registered manager promoted the ethos of honesty, learning from mistakes and admitted when things had gone wrong. This reflected the requirements of the Duty of Candour. The Duty of Candour is a legal obligation to act in an open and transparent way in relation to care and treatment. Feedback on the service was sought in creative ways to ensure everybody had their voices heard.

People were kept safe. People had their medicines as prescribed and on time; and were cared for by staff who had undergone checks to ensure they had the correct characteristics to work with vulnerable people. Staff understood their role in safeguarding people and in recognising and reporting signs of abuse.

People were supported by staff who were skilled to meet their needs. They had received training to carry out their roles which was regularly updated and refreshed. Staff were supported by an ongoing programme of supervision, competency checks and appraisals.

People’s consent was sought prior to staff providing them with any assistance. Staff had a sound knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and understood how to apply this to the care and support they provided to people. Staff understood capacity could change over time and was decision specific. This was reflected in people’s care records and observed in the way they interacted with people.

People’s health and social care needs were addressed holistically through access to a range of health and social care professionals. People’s care records were personalised, contained the correct guidance for staff and recognised the person as a whole, including their social history, choices, aspirations and goals.

The service was free from adverse odours, although some areas were not always clean. For example, we noticed dirt and debris on one stairwell and along one corridor. The environment was comfortable and people’s bedrooms were spacious, bright and personalised to suit their preferences.

People enjoyed the meals and were offered choice. People had enough to eat and drink and feedback on the meals was extremely posi

The service was last inspected in January 2013, when we found improvements were needed to some documentation relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At this visit in November 2013 we found that these issues had been addressed.

We found that people’s consent had been obtained for care and treatment provided to them by the service. We saw from care records that some people had signed their care plans to indicate they were happy with the content. Where people did not wish to sign their care plans this was recorded.

We found that care plans reflected the needs of a person as an individual because they contained details of people’s personal history, their likes and dislikes and what type of support they required.

Care workers were able to tell us about different types of abuse and what they would do if they suspected abuse was occurring.

People who used the service told us that care workers were not rushed and had time to meet their needs. Comments included “They see to all my needs”. They also told us that care workers always spoke nicely to them and treated them with respect. Another person told us “Quality of care is very good here”.

The registered person protected people who used the service, against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment. We know this because there was an effective system in operation which was designed to enable the provider to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the services provided.

The service provides a safe environment for people with mental health needs either as a long term home or supported to become independent moving to independent living services.

We observed that the atmosphere appeared relaxed and informal. People are supported by staff that understand their individual needs and the outcomes they are aiming to achieve. The staff we spoke with all demonstrated a good understanding of needs of each person that used the service.

We invited people using the service to opportunity to discuss their experiences with us, many declined feeling uncomfortable. We where able to talk to three people one who had been supported for a long period one who had been living at the service for three years and one who had recently moved to Riviera Court.

We observed staff interacting with the individuals carrying out activities and guiding them through areas of their day such as hospital appointments, or support them to visit the GP.

We spoke to staff who felt they where well supported by both the manager and other team members.

People told us “I really like it here”, and “some staff are the same age this helps to relate with them”. We observed staff talking to people with respect and dignity.

People who live at Riviera Court were complimentary about the home and the staff. ‘It’s alright here, I quite like it’, said one person who told us they had lived there for several years. Another person said they had come for two weeks’ respite, and they were glad that this facility is available. ‘Nothing is too much trouble for the staff’, they said, ‘and the food is very good’.

One person showed us round the house. They were particularly pleased to show us the training kitchen, where they prepared meals under the supervision of the regular cook, and also joined in cleaning tasks. ‘We’re a team’, they said.

Other people told us they would like more opportunity to prepare their own food. Health care professionals told us they would like to see more provision for enabling people to rebuild their skills of daily life, with individual support for shopping and cooking.

We were told that group outings have been provided on Sundays, but at the time of this visit there were not generally enough staff to enable 1;1 support for people outside the home. Some people were assessed as able to go out unaccompanied. People told us they had their bus pass, and that staff would give them their medication if they wanted to be out during the day.