This inspection took place on 21 and 24 October 2016 and was announced.

Rosedale House provides accommodation and support to a maximum of two people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were two people living in the home.

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.

People were safe living in the home. Risks to people were identified and well managed, this included risks associated with the environment and premises. Staff demonstrated an awareness of adult safeguarding and knew how to report concerns. Incidents and accidents were reported and the service worked to ensure the likelihood of reoccurrences was reduced.

There was enough staff to meet people’s needs. People were supported by a stable and consistent staff group, who knew them well. New staff received an induction that supported them to carry out their role. Staff worked together to ensure they could meet people’s needs effectively.

Medicines were managed and stored safely. There was guidance in place so staff knew how to administer medicines. Regular audits were taken on medicines to check and ensure they were managed safely.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. Staff and the management team understood the MCA DoLS and its impact on the support they provided. The service was following the legal requirements.

People were supported to maintain their health, this included supporting people to eat healthily and address nutritional risks. Staff ensured people received the health care they required.

People were supported by staff that cared for them, knew them as individuals, and treated them respectfully. People living in the home had complex communication needs. The service had in place communication systems to help people express their wishes and feelings. There were opportunities for people to discuss their support and relatives felt involved in decisions.

The care provided was responsive and timely, it met people’s individual needs and preferences. Relatives told us they knew how to complain and felt comfortable and able to do so. Where issues had been raised action had been taken to respond to them.

People were supported to maintain important relationships and participate in activities. Although some relatives felt at times more opportunities could be sought out.

There was an open culture in the home. Relatives felt the registered manager was transparent and honest. Staff felt supported and issues were dealt with in a constructive and motivating manner. Relatives and staff were positive about the support and leadership of the registered manager. There were quality monitoring processes in place to help monitor and identity issues that might affect the quality of the service provided.

During our inspection we observed staff interacting positively with the people using this service. They gave them time to agree to specific tasks and provided choices where this was appropriate.

We saw that people were supported to be involved in activities which interested them such as, taking walks to get the daily paper, going on train trips and using a trampoline. At the time of our inspection we observed a person using the service jumping on the trampoline which was in the garden of Rosedale House. We saw that they were happy, continually smiling and enjoying themselves.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to obtaining people's medication. However, there were no arrangements in place for stock checking people's boxed medication.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and there was an appropriate recruitment process in place.

People were given support by the provider to make a comment or complaint.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care. We reviewed the care plans of all people living at Rosedale. We saw that these were written in a person centred way and described in detail people’s likes and dislikes.

Our observations demonstrated that care and support was delivered in line with people’s care plans. For example, in one person’s personal hygiene plan we saw that they required prompting with tasks such as washing their hands. During this inspection, we saw staff prompting this action. Comments from the last relative survey included, “The team provide a quality service my [relative] is very well cared for and has a wonderful life. I am very grateful.” Another relative commented, “My [relative] has improved greatly since moving to Rosedale House."

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

Staff were provided with appropriate training to ensure that they could meet the needs of the people they were caring for. They were also supported through a regular system of supervision.

The provider had an effective quality monitoring system in place which allowed them to identify areas for improvement and take appropriate action.