Ruskin Mill is a specialist residential college. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to twenty young people. The service is also registered to provide personal care to young people living with Shared Lives carers People using the service were between 16 and 25 years of age.

At the time of our inspection eight people were living at three addresses registered to provide accommodation and personal care. These were called 'team homes'. The college provided staff to support people at these addresses. Twenty people were using the Shared Lives scheme under the regulated activity of personal care. Students live with Shared Lives carers in their home. Ruskin Mill recruits, trains and monitors Shared Lives carers who are paid a fee to provide care and support to students.

People using the Shared Lives scheme and living in team homes all attended the college. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates and inspects the accommodation and personal care provided by Ruskin Mill. The educational provision at the college is regulated and inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED ).

Most of the young people used the service in term time only. However, if required, by individual arrangement they were able to stay at their 'team home' or Shared Lives carer when the college shut at the end of term.

We carried out an unannounced focused inspection of this service because we had received some information of concern and we wanted to investigate this. We have only looked at the areas of safe and well-led as the concerns were within these areas.

This report only covers our findings in relation to these specific areas. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Ruskin Mill College’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. Our findings at this inspection have not changed the current rating of ‘good’ for the key questions of Safe and Well-led or the overall ‘good’ service rating.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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.

There was a robust safeguarding process in place at Ruskin Mill College. Staff had received safeguarding training and were able to describe the various types of abuse. There were clear processes in place for staff and people using the service to report concerns. Where concerns had been raised they were reported to the appropriate agencies and the concerns had been addressed appropriately.

The service had implemented thorough checks to ensure the staff who were employed were suitable and safe for the role. Staff had received a thorough induction when they first started working at the service to ensure they were appropriately skilled to support the people using the service.

The registered manager and senior leadership team offered strong leadership which was evident throughout the inspection. Staff we spoke with told us they felt confident in the skills of the management team and felt well supported by management. The vision and values of the service were clear and coherent. Staff of all levels had a good understanding of the visions and values. There was a positive, open and transparent culture within the service. The staff and management took accountability of their own practice to ensure the service provided to people was person centred and safe. Staff told us they were encouraged to question and challenge regardless of their job role and this had promoted a positive culture within the service. Staff told us this had resulted in positive staff morale across the organisation.

Ruskin Mill is a specialist residential college. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to twenty young people. The service is also registered to provide personal care to young people living with shared lives providers. People using the service were between 16 and 25 years of age.

At the time of our inspection eight people were living at three addresses registered to provide accommodation and personal care. These were called ‘team homes’. The college provided staff to support people at these addresses. Twenty people were using the shared lives scheme under the regulated activity of personal care. This is an arrangement where individuals and families in the local community (shared lives providers) provide accommodation and support for students.

People using the shared lives scheme and living in team homes all attended the college. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates and inspects the accommodation and personal care. The educational provision at the college is regulated and inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

Most of the young people used the service in term time only. However, if required, by individual arrangement they were able to stay at their ‘team home’ or shared lives provider when the college shut at the end of terms.

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 and 9 December 2016.

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.

Ruskin Mill as a specialist residential college had a clear and distinct vision and set of values. Staff consistently reinforced the aim of ensuring the young people received a co-ordinated service that aimed to meet their physical, psychological, educational, social and spiritual needs in a holistic manner. This meant learning plans and activities provided at college were continued when people were at home or using their local communities. People and staff spoke enthusiastically about their learning, achievements and striving to gain greater independence.

People benefitted from receiving a service that kept them safe. The registered manager, staff and shared lives providers understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. People were supported to take risks, promote their independence and follow their interests. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff and shared lives providers before they started work with people to assess their suitability. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

The service people received was effective in meeting their needs. Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. Shared lives providers also received training and were able to access support from the provider when needed. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Arrangements were made for people to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. The accommodation we saw was personalised and met people’s needs.

People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff and shared lives providers treated people with dignity and respect. People’s views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was provided in ways that were easy to understand. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends during term times. Some relatives said communication bet

We met with the head of the college, the registered manager, the safeguarding and human resources managers, four shared lives carers, four team home managers and five people that used the service.

We looked documentation maintained by the provider about the people who were supported. We also looked at the recruitment and selection records of the staff that were employed to support people in team homes and also their shared lives carers.

We found people were involved in their care and they were encouraged to maintain their independence. People were treated with dignity and respect. People's care was planned and delivered according to the assessments completed and were reviewed regularly. Appropriate risks were considered to ensure people stayed safe.

We also found that the provider recruited, checked and approved shared lives carers and their own employed staff to provide care and support to vulnerable adults. The services were provided in the shared lives carers own home and in team homes that were staffed by the provider.

The provider, staff and shared lives carers had robust policies and procedures for safeguarding vulnerable adults, and people who used the service knew how to complain.

Shared lives carers and employed staff told us that they felt well supported. The people that used the service, shared lives carers and staff said that there were systems in place for them to voice their own views and opinions and to receive feedback about this.

This visit was to follow up our inspection of the service in August 2011 where we had made compliance actions about the safeguarding practice of Ruskin Mill College. The purpose of our visit was to look at the actions taken and examine policies and procedures. We also discussed the arrangements regarding a number of areas such as risk assessments, mental capacity assessments, reporting of safeguarding incidents.

We found there has been significant improvements in the arrangements for the reporting and management of safeguarding incidents. The service has reviewed its policies and procedures and these are now more robust particularly around their relationship with the Safeguarding team and local police. Of particular note is the decision to appoint a Safeguarding and Welfare manager. This appointment will, it is hoped, further enhance and consolidate the service's response to safeguarding incidents and concerns.

Since our last review of the service, where we had real concerns about the reporting of safeguarding incidents, we have found that reporting of incidents has improved. This is to be welcomed and reflects a more professional approach to safeguarding. We have however identified that an area of improvement is that of reporting incidents within an appropriate timescale and we have commented further on this in the report.

We have noted that this service has over the past year had students with increasing care needs. Students are being placed at Ruskin Mill with complex and at times challenging behaviour related to their high level of disability. This, in part, has resulted in significant number of incidents of concern. We recognise that the admission process and on going assessments of students needs is crucial in making decisions not only about individuals suitability but also the capacity of the college to continue meeting their health and welfare and managing the associated risks. The college environment and opportunities potentially available to students is one which in itself places a real challenge on students. The benefits of such an environment should not be under estimated. It enables students to achieve real and quality life changing experiences.

In discussion with the college they recognise their responsibility to make decisions which are robust and realistic in terms of their capacity to meet students needs in a professional and above all safe manner. This is an area of continued learning and review for the college. It is crucial that there must be robust arrangements and systems in place to respond to incidents of concern in an effective manner whilst maintaining the safety of individuals when in college or their living accommodation. As we have noted elsewhere in this review there is evidence that such arrangements are in place and being built upon to make sure they are effective. We understand the college is actively addressing their admission arrangements to address specifically the increasing care needs of potential students.

Two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to follow up on previous breaches of regulations and answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with 14 students and five care staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included, seven care plans, daily care records and staff training records. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

Information from incident reports was used to review the effectiveness of risk assessments and personal plans. Changes were made as needed to keep students safe whilst protecting their freedom.

Emergency arrangements were in place to support students unhappy with their residential placement. Student concerns about bullying or the behaviour of others were being effectively addressed.

Is the service effective?

Specific training staff needed to support new students had been provided before students started at the college. Training staff needed to support returning students had not yet been provided.

Is the service caring?

Students told us support had improved over the last six months. They felt positive about their remaining time at the college. Students were happy to be supported by small groups of consistent staff that they liked. Staff and shared lives providers interacted with students in a respectful and appropriate way. Students were relaxed in their residential placements.

Is the service responsive?

Students told us they had been actively involved in developing their personal plans. They were happy with the resulting plans and staff were confident the content was accurate. The needs of students were well documented but how they should be supported was still being developed as term had only recently started.

Is the service well-led?

At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post. They had recently begun the application process with us to address this.

Record keeping quality checks were being undertaken and problems highlighted by the checks had been addressed. Staff now felt well supported to produce the personal plans. Staff told us senior staff were responsive to requests for training and support.