Royal Mencap Society - 2 Meadow View is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to four people. The home specialises in care for people who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. The home is situated in a cul-de-sac and has outdoor garden areas and off street parking.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Procedures were in place which helped to ensure people were supported by care workers who understood the importance of protecting them from avoidable harm and abuse. Care workers had received training on how to identify abuse and report any concerns to the appropriate authorities.

There were sufficient care workers with appropriate skills and knowledge to meet people’s individual needs. The registered provider had a robust recruitment process that ensured only care workers deemed suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed.

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

Where people received support with their medicines, systems and processes were in place that ensured this was managed and administered safely and in a timely manner. Accurate records were maintained and reviewed.

Everybody living at the home was involved in their care planning as much or as little as they wanted or were able to be. People’s records of their care were reviewed and included up to date information that reflected their current needs.

People were provided with a wholesome and nutritionally balanced diet which was of their choosing.

People were supported to access other healthcare professionals where this was required.

Care workers had a good understanding of people’s needs and were kind and caring. They understood the importance of respecting people’s dignity and upholding their right to privacy.

People were supported to undertake activities of their choosing and these included holidays and involvement with the local and wider community.

Systems and processes were in place to encourage, manage and investigate any complaints.

People who used the service, and those who had an interest in their welfare and wellbeing, were asked for their views about how the service was run.

Regular audits were carried out to ensure the service was safe and well run.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At the time of our visit there were four people residing at the service.

Records showed one person had recorded their involvement in decisions regarding their support. People’s independence was promoted through involvement in daily tasks.

Care plans were person centred and provided clear guidance to support staff to ensure people’s needs were safely met. We spoke with one person who indicated they were happy with the support they received.

Staff had a good knowledge of the dietary requirements of people who used the service and provided appropriate support.

Appropriate recruitment policies were in place to check that people working at the service did not present a risk to people who lived at the service.

The provider had effective systems in place to check on the quality and safety of the service people received at 2 Meadow View.

Records were accurate, fit for purpose and were stored securely.

This home operates closely with three other homes located in the same area; numbers 1, 3 and 4 Meadow View. We did not speak with people who lived at the home but we made obervations during our visit. People appeared contented and were going about their daily lives with purpose.

People’s consent to care was gained and we saw evidence that people received the care they needed. Staff had training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLs) to ensure people's rights were protected.

We saw up to date plans of care which considered individual physical, emotional and mental health care needs. We saw risk assessments and that all documentation was kept up to date to ensure people had their changing needs met. We saw that the home consulted with specialists to make sure people had the benefit of expert advice.

People were protected from harm and the risk of harm through staff training and risk assessments.

We saw that the home had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service.

We were unable to communicate with people about their care and welfare but we observed that staff communicated well with the people living at the home.

We observed good rapport between people living at the home and staff.

The inspection took place on 20 and 22 January 2015 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 12 November 2013 and was fully compliant with the regulations reviewed.

Royal Mencap – 2 Meadow View is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to four people. The home specialises in care for people who have a learning disability.

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.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 legislation, which is in place for people who are unable to make decisions for them. The legislation is designed to make sure any decisions are made in the person’s best interest. The service was currently developing systems in the home to support people with issues relating to the MCA.

People were supported by staff who had been trained in the systems for handling any allegations of abuse or harm. We found the manager and staff knowledgeable about the needs of people living in the home. We saw interactions between the staff and people who lived in the home were positive and respectful.

Adequate numbers of staff supported people, this included when necessary, two to one staffing. Staff recruitment included checks to help make sure potential staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff undertook training to help make sure they had the necessary skills to support people.

People were able to live their lives as they chose. Risks to their welfare were identified and action plans put in place to reduce these. This included any health or nutritional risks, for example, if people were at risk of choking. Staff had received training in supporting people with their medication. The manager observed staff practice regarding the management of medication to help make sure they were competent with this.

Systems were in place to help make sure there were well-trained staff who were supported by their manager. This helped to make sure an effective staff team supported people living in the home.

People’s personal preferences and choices were known by the staff team. People told us they had choice in their lives, for example with their food. We observed people going out in the community throughout our visit. People’s care plans recorded they had undertaken a variety of activities, including if they went on holiday.

People living in the home did not raise any concerns about the staff. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s personal preferences and choices. We saw staff were respectful with people and offered good support.

The manager was knowledgeable both about the needs of the people who lived in the home and the staff team. Staff felt the manager was approachable and that they could raise any concerns with them.

There were quality assurance systems in place to gain the views of people who lived in the home and to help make sure there was effective management of the home.