36a Gibraltar Crescent provides care, support and accommodation for a maximum of six adults with learning disabilities and hearing impairment. There were six people living at the home at the time of the inspection. People had communication needs. People mainly used British Sign Language (BSL) to communicate their needs.

There was 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.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were recruitment practices in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people.

People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.

People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant and accurate records.

Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks such as personal care, health, and the environment and they were updated frequently.

The registered manager had oversight of incidents and accidents, but had not always ensured that actions had been taken after incidents and accidents had occurred. The registered manager put a process in place to ensure that this did not happen again.

People’s human rights were protected as the registered manager ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. Where people were assessed to lack capacity to make some decisions, mental capacity assessment and best interest meetings had been undertaken. Staff were heard to ask people’s consent before they provided care.

Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.

People had sufficient to eat and drink. People were offered a choice of what they would like to eat and drink. People’s weights were monitored on a regular basis to ensure that people remained healthy.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.

Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place to meet people’s needs. There was an induction programme in place which included staff undertaking the Care Certificate. Staff received regular supervision.

People were well cared for and positive relationships had been established between people and staff. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.

People, their relatives and health professionals were involved in planning people’s care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the registered manager knew people’s choices and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People received a personalised service. Care and support was person centred and this was reflected in their care plans. Care plans contained sufficient detail for staff to support people effectively. People were supported to develop their independence. There were a choice of activities in place which people enjoyed.

The home listened to people, staff and relative’s views. There was a complaints procedure in place. Complaints had been responded to in line with the home’s complaints policy.

The management promoted an open and person centred culture. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. Staff and relatives told us they felt that the management was approachable and responsive.

There were robust proc

We undertook an announced inspection of the service to ensure that we could speak to and obtain the views of people who use the service. People living at the service lead active lives and attend community activities five days a week. We sampled three support files and found these contained personal likes and dislikes and preferences. Therefore making care plans more individualised.

We found people's nutritional needs were being met and supported. We found people living at the service were supported to be as independent as possible.

We noted warm and respectful interaction between people who lived at the care home and staff who supported them. We observed that the environment was clean, bright and well decorated using art work of people who lived there and photographs documenting enjoyable shared activities and holidays. This meant that people were well supported and the environment was safe, suitable and homely.

Staff were only employed following a structured recruitment and interview process and relevant checks were carried out prior to them starting work.

In addition to speaking with relatives and staff, we were assisted in this inspection by a Makaton interpreter to enable us to hear the views of people who used the service. (Makaton is a language programme that uses signs and symbols to help people to communicate.)

People told us that they were happy living at the home. They said that staff were available when they needed them and that staff were polite and treated them with respect. People told us that they had opportunities to give their views about the support they received and that staff listened to and acted upon what they said.

The relatives we spoke with told us that their family members had benefited from the consistency of support provided by a stable staff team They said that staff supported people to develop skills and to increase their independence. They said that staff promoted people’s rights to make choices about their lives and supported them to be involved in their local community.

Staff were positive about their roles and said that they received good support to do their jobs, including regular training, supervision and appraisal. We found that staff had a good knowledge of the individual needs and preferences of the people they supported.

People who use the service and their families said that the staff were very committed to the welfare of the residents. They said residents had many opportunities to go out to day centres or on other trips. They praised the holidays that had been organised by the home. The people who used the service said that they felt safe at the home. Family members agreed that the service was safe.