Sahara Gardens is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection.

This inspection took place on 18 and 23 and 24 January 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out this inspection. At the previous inspection in July 2015, the service was rated as ‘Good’ overall.

Sahara Gardens accommodates five adults with learning disabilities and autism in a two storey building. At the time of this inspection there were four people using the service.

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. 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.

Relatives, health and social care professionals and other agencies were complimentary about the service people received. The service used a variety of communication methods to enable people to understand information given them and to voice their opinions. People had access to advocacy services to assist them to have a voice. Staff demonstrated a good rapport with people. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and care plans took account of the support they needed around relationships. Staff assisted people to reach for their goals and aspirations and were genuinely proud of what each person achieved.

Staff received support through regular supervisions and a wide range of training opportunities appropriate for their role. The premises had been refurbished and redecorated with the kitchen relocated to meet people’s needs. Building safety checks were carried out as required. The communal garden was spectacular and had been designed with the involvement of people who used the service. People were involved in menu planning and food preparation to meet their nutritional requirements. Staff assisted people to access healthcare professionals as they needed.

People’s care was personalised. Staff were responsive to any change of needs. People participated in activities of their choice. The wide variety of activities offered included the development of independent living skills and reflected people’s cultural or religious needs. People and their relatives knew how to complain but told us they had not needed to. Care plans included very detailed end of life care plans and staff were knowledgeable about how to make people’s end of life wishes happen.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people were protected from harm. Staff were knowledgeable about the actions to take if they suspected someone was being abused. People had risk assessments and risk management plans to mitigate the risks they may face. Safe recruitment checks were carried out and people were given the opportunity to participate in the interview process of new staff. Medicines were managed safely. The provider had systems in place for the control of infection.

The provider had various systems in place to obtain feedback from people and their relatives including regular meetings and feedback surveys. People were encouraged to participate in the development of the service. Staff had regular meetings so they could be updated and contribute to service development. The provider had various quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement. The service had good local links to enable people to

People we spoke with told us they had privacy and staff gave them choices about their care.

People we spoke with said they were "fine" and their care was "good". We found people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

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 abuse from happening. We found there was a safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistle-blowing policy in place.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. We reviewed the staff rota and, saw there were enough staff available throughout the day to provide people with care they needed and to meet their needs. Staff files we viewed indicated staff were suitably qualified, skilled and experienced to undertake their roles.

People we spoke with told us staff were "alright" and treated them "nicely." We found staff received appropriate professional development. Staff we spoke with told us they had opportunities to undertake regular training within the service. We reviewed three staff files.

People we spoke with told us they had no complaints about the service. We found people who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

We spoke to one resident who told us the service they received was " ok and good". We observed and noted that residents were engaged in conversations with staff and could decide how they would spend their day and what activities they could participate in.

Sahara Lodge Respite Unit, also known as Sahara Gardens is a residential care home for five people with learning disabilities. Until recently it provided a respite service for short stay residents. However, the people currently staying in the home have decided they would like to stay permanently. The provider is considering changing the name the service is registered under to prevent confusion over the type of service they offer. The provider also operates a day service five days a week for up to 12 people including people from this home, and from the home next door which the provider also runs.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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.

We found people consistently received their medicines safely and as prescribed. There were systems in place to check and maintain the safety and suitability of the premises and these were up-to-date. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures relating to safeguarding and whistleblowing. Safe recruitment checks were carried out and there were adequate numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. People had an assessment of their needs and risk assessments were carried out to ensure safe care was provided.

People were given a choice of food and drink and took part in the menu planning and grocery shopping for the house. Staff knew the people they were supporting including their preferences to ensure a personalised service was provided. People were encouraged to develop their independent living skills. There was a variety of activities offered in the home and in the community to ensure people had their social and emotional needs met. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their day-to-day health needs.

Staff received regular training and opportunities for skill development. The manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities around legislation regarding people’s mental capacity. Staff described how they obtained people’s consent before delivering care.

People knew how to make a complaint and these were responded to within the timescales set in the provider’s policy. Staff felt able to raise concerns or issues with the registered manager. The provider had systems to check the quality of the service provided. People and their representatives were able to give feedback through satisfaction surveys. Staff received regular supervisions to ensure good quality care was provided and attended regular staff meetings to receive updates on the service.