The inspection took place on 13 November 2017 and it was unannounced.

Rookery Cottage is a care home which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to six people with a learning disability. The service is a large detached building within Reading close to local shops and other amenities. People who use the service have their own bedrooms and use of communal areas that include an enclosed private garden. The people living in the service needed care and support from staff at all times and had a range of care needs. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of our inspection five people were living at the service.

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 registered manager was on leave at the time of our visit, therefore the deputy manager supported our inspection. We spoke with the registered manager after their leave to discuss the inspection.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents or allegations of abuse. Personal and environmental risks to the safety of people, staff and visitors had been assessed and actions had been taken to minimise those risks. Appropriate records were in place and stored correctly.

The provider had employed skilled staff. They were knowledgeable and caring, making sure people received appropriate care and support. People received support that was individualised to their personal preferences and needs. Their needs were monitored and care plans reviewed regularly or as changes occurred.

People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs. People were able to continue their usual daily activities and access the local community to enhance social activities. Staff understood the needs of the people and we saw care was provided with kindness and consideration.

The recruitment and selection process helped to ensure people were supported by suitable staff of good character. There were sufficient numbers of staff on each shift. The service ensured there were enough qualified and knowledgeable staff to meet people’s needs at all times.

People received their prescribed medicine safely and on time. Storage, handling and records of medicine were accurate.

People's rights to confidentiality, dignity and privacy were respected. Staff supported and encouraged people to develop and maintain their independence wherever possible. Relatives were complimentary of the service and the way their family members were supported.

People were given a nutritious and balanced diet and hot and cold drinks and snacks were available between meals. People had their healthcare needs identified and were able to access healthcare professionals such as their GP. Staff knew how to access specialist professional help when needed.

People were supported in the least restrictive way possible to have maximum choice and control of their lives. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

We observed a calm and relaxed atmosphere during our inspection. People were treated kindly and with respect. Staff were happy in their jobs and there was a good team spirit. The registered manager had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of care being delivered and the running of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings in the full report.

This inspection took place on 7 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Rookery Cottage is a care home which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to six people with a learning disability. The home is a large detached building within Reading close to local shops and other amenities. People have their own bedrooms and use of communal areas that includes an enclosed private garden. The people living in the home needed care and support from staff at all times and have a range of care needs.

The home has not had a registered manager since the 20 January 2015. However a manager who works full-time within the home has applied to CQC to become the registered manager. 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 recruitment and selection process helped to ensure people were supported by staff of good character. Staff numbers had been increased and were being reviewed on the day of our visit. This was to ensure there was a sufficient amount of qualified and trained staff to meet people’s needs safely. This had included agency staff to cover shifts where there were staff vacancies. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse.

People received support to have their medicine by staff who had received training. Staff had received training to provide positive behaviour support to protect people from harm in their best interest.

The service had taken the necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights. They understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. DoLS provide a lawful way to deprive someone of their liberty, provided it is in their own best interests or is necessary to keep them from harm.

Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and support people’s individual needs. People received good quality care. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There were various formal methods used for assessing and improving the quality of care.

People who use the service had a range of communication skills. These ranged from verbal to limited verbal communication and other methods such as pictures to communicate their needs and wishes which were understood by staff.

People were provided with effective care from a dedicated staff team who had received support through supervision, staff meetings and training.

People’s care plans detailed how the person wanted their needs to be met. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and specific behavioural and or health related issues. They helped to promote people’s independence whilst minimising the risks.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect and had regular contact with people’s families to make sure they were fully informed about the care and support their relative received. People were encouraged to live a fulfilled life with activities of their choosing. Their families were encouraged to be fully involved at the reviews of their support needs. People’s families told us that they were very happy with the care their relatives received.

We found the provider had made the required improvements and had introduced systems to monitor their own ongoing compliance.

Before people received any care they were asked for their consent and the staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

On the day of our inspection we spoke with five of the six people living at the home and four of the 12 care workers.

We found that before people received any care they were asked for their consent and the staff acted in accordance with their wishes. However, staff were not aware of the legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 where people did not have capacity to consent to specific questions relating to their care and treatment. People we spoke with confirmed that staff always asked their permission before doing anything with them. One person said "they ask me all the time".

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition. We observed the lunchtime meal and saw there were enough staff available to provide assistance if needed or requested. People told us they were enjoying their lunch and one person told us "it's my favourite today." The manager was aware of the government's heatwave guidance and had implemented the guidelines where appropriate, to make sure people were protected from the risk of dehydration.

We looked around the building and found people who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. We saw people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because their personal records were accurate and up to date.

In relation to the suitability of staffing, we found staff were not supported to deliver care to people living at the home safely and to an appropriate standard. Not all staff had been provided with full induction training and not all staff were up to date with training in the subjects considered mandatory by the provider. The provider had not taken appropriate steps to ensure that, at all times, there were sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and experienced staff working at the home.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff working at the home. Comments made to us included: "X is nice, I like it when X works, we have a laugh" and "we had a party yesterday, it was really good and staff helped us do everything."

We spoke to one person who lived at the home.They told us they liked living in the home and they were looking forward to going on holiday at the weekend with staff and some of the other people who lived at the home.

We saw people being encouraged to be independent and make choices about activities for the day. Staff encouraged people to help at mealtimes and to make choices over what to eat and drink. The interactions between staff and people living at the home were courteous and respectful. Staff did not enter anyone's room with out knocking and obtaining their permission first.

A quality assurance review was undertaken by the provider in October 2012 and a questionnaire was given to people who live at the home, their relatives and other professionals. Some of the comments about what the home did well included "maintaining a good atmosphere in the home" and "having patience and understanding". One relative wrote "We know efforts have been made to (help) him make decisions for himself" another commented on the "happy and relaxed atmosphere" in the home.

The registered manager for the home left in June 2012. A new, permanent manager was appointed in October 2012.