The inspection took place on 22 June 2018. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and was unannounced.

9-10 Jutland Place provides accommodation, care and support for a maximum of eight adults with learning disabilities. There were seven people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

9-10 Jutland Place is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post who was on leave at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection in January 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated good:

There were always enough staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff understood their responsibilities regarding keeping people safe from abuse and knew how to report any concerns they had. The provider’s recruitment procedures helped ensure that only suitable staff were employed.

Staff had assessed the risks people faced and implemented measures to keep them as safe as possible whilst living the life they chose. There were plans in place to ensure that people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. Staff kept the home clean and hygienic and maintained appropriate standards of infection control.

Staff had the training and support they needed to do their jobs. This meant they had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care. Staff had opportunities to discuss their professional development and to achieve further, relevant qualifications.

People’s needs had been assessed to ensure staff had the skills to provide their care. Staff supported people to stay healthy and to obtain treatment if they needed it. Information about people’s needs had been recorded for medical staff should the person require admission to hospital. People’s needs were met by the layout and design of the premises.

Restrictions were only imposed upon people where these were authorised and necessary to keep them safe. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. If a person lacked capacity to make a decision, relevant people had been involved in the decision-making process to ensure the outcome reflected the person’s best interests.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and any dietary needs recorded in their care plans. Risk assessments had been carried out to identify any risks related to eating and drinking. People were involved in choosing the menu. Staff struck an appropriate balance between enabling choice and promoting a balanced diet.

People received their care from kind and caring st

9-10 Jutland Place provides accommodation, care and support for a maximum of eight adults with learning disabilities. There were seven people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The inspection took place on 8 and 15 January 2016. The first visit was unannounced. Due to the small size of this service, the inspection was carried out by one inspector.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe because staff understood their responsibilities should they suspect abuse was taking place and knew how to report any concerns they had. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and measures had been put in place to mitigate these risks. There were plans in place to ensure that people’s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency.

There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. The provider’s recruitment procedures helped ensure that only suitable staff were employed. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People received their care from a consistent staff team who knew their needs well. Staff were well supported through supervision and appraisal and had opportunities to discuss their professional development. All staff had attended a comprehensive induction and had access to relevant, ongoing training. Staff were motivated and had a commitment to providing high quality care and support. They said morale was good and they worked well together as a team.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed to keep people safe. Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care and people’s best interests had been considered when they needed support to make decisions.

Staff enabled people to make informed choices about what they ate and supported them to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain good health and to obtain treatment when they needed it. The service had effective relationships with healthcare professionals which ensured that people received the care and treatment they needed.

Staff were kind and caring. They treated people with respect and supported them in a way that maintained their privacy and dignity. Staff made sure people had the information they needed to make informed choices and to understand information that was important to them. Relatives told us their family members received high quality care from caring staff. Staff promoted people’s involvement in their local community. People had opportunities to take part in social events and activities and were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and families.

People received personalised care and support based on their individual needs. Staff shared information about people’s needs effectively to ensure that care was being provided in a consistent way. People’s needs and wishes were reviewed regularly and relatives’ contributions to reviews were encouraged and valued.

The registered manager provided good leadership for the service and led by example in their approach to supporting people. The registered manager encouraged the input of people, their relatives, staff and other stakeholders in developing and improving the service. Staff told us the registered manager encouraged staff to think creatively about how support could be provided in a way that best met people’s needs. The provider had effective systems of quality monitoring, which helped ensure that all areas of th

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

• Is the service safe?

People were cared for in a safe, clean, homely environment. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs and staff had access to on-call management support 24 hours a day. Care plans demonstrated that people’s healthcare needs were addressed and that people had access to medical advice and treatment when they needed it. Staff carried out regular checks to ensure that people were cared for in a safe environment and risk assessments had been carried out to identify and manage any risks to people.

• Is the service effective?

People told us that they could make choices about how they spent their time and that they had opportunities to take part in activities they enjoyed. People said that staff helped them arrange a medical appointment if they felt unwell and accompanied them to appointments.

Guidance was provided for staff in the way people preferred their care and support to be delivered. Staff communicated important information about people’s needs effectively and provided care and support in a consistent way. People were supported to access their local community and to maintain relationships with their friends and families.

Records, including care records, were well organised and up to date. There were clear standard operating procedures in place, which were known and understood by staff.

• Is the service caring?

People told us that staff were available when they needed them and that they provided good support. One person told us, “I like all the staff here” and another said that they enjoyed going out with staff.

All the staff on duty had worked with the people living at the home for some time and knew their needs well. This meant that people received consistent care from staff who understood their needs. We observed that staff engaged positively with people who used the service and treated them with respect. Staff were observant of people’s needs and provided support promptly when it was required.

• Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they began to use the service to ensure that the home was suitable for them. People received a personalised service based on their individual needs and preferences. People’s needs were reviewed regularly and the provider responded appropriately if their needs changed.

The provider sought the advice of other health and social care professionals when appropriate to ensure that people received the care and treatment they needed.

People told us that they were consulted about the home’s menu and that they enjoyed the food provided at the home. They said that they could have alternatives to the menu if they wished. People told us that they enjoyed eating out and that they were able to invite their friends and families for meals at the home if they wished.

• Is the service well-led?

The registered manager had been in post for a number of years and provided good leadership to the staff team. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and had access to the training they needed to do their jobs. Staff said they were well supported by the manager and had opportunities to discuss their professional development needs.

The provider had developed systems to monitor the quality of the service, including seeking the views of people living at the home and other stakeholders. The service was also monitored by the local authority quality assurance team. We found that the provider took action to address any shortfalls identified through this process.

During our inspection, we spoke to four people who used the service, two members of staff and the manager. People who used the service told us that they enjoyed living at the home. They said that staff were kind, helpful and treated them with respect. People said that they could choose how they spent their time and that they had opportunities to take part in activities they enjoyed. Staff respected people’s choices and provided a flexible service according to their individual needs. People were involved in their local community and were supported to maintain their independence.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored and they were supported to access treatment or specialist input when they needed it. We found that staff managed the recording, administration, and disposal of medication appropriately. Records of the care, support and treatment people received were accurate and up to date.

Staff received the training, supervision and support they needed to do their jobs. The staff team shared important information effectively to ensure that they were aware of any changes in people’s needs or the way in which their support should be provided. The staff we spoke with told us that the manager encouraged them to contribute their views about how the experience of people who used the service could be improved.

The people we spoke with said they felt safe and well cared for at the home and that staff treated them well. They said that they were able to have their say about the way the home was run and about the care they received.

They said that they enjoyed living at the home and that staff were available when they needed them. People said that they had opportunities to go out, which was important to them, and that staff supported them to take part in activities that they enjoyed. People told us that staff helped them arrange an appointment with a doctor if they felt unwell and accompanied them to appointments.

Relatives told us that the service was well managed and that the people who lived there were happy. They said that staff provided good care and supported people to develop skills and independence. They said that the home had a positive atmosphere and was always clean.