We carried out this inspection on 24 May 2017. We told the manager we were coming 48 hours before the visit so they could arrange for some people, relatives and staff to be available to talk with us about the service.

Select Lifestyles Limited is a service which provides personal care support for up to six adults with a learning disability. At the time of our visit, six people used the service.

The service had a registered manager however this person no longer worked at the service and was in the process of de-registering with us. 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. A new manager was in post and had been since December 2016. They were in the process of registering with us.

At our previous inspection in June 2016 we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ in the areas of ‘effective’ and ‘well-led’. We found referrals to other professionals were not always made in a timely way. Staff did not always feel that they could raise concerns with the management team. We had not always received the notifications required to enable us to monitor the service. At this visit staff felt the new manager in post was approachable, effective and would listen to any concerns raised. People had been referred to health professionals by staff when required and we had received statutory notifications correctly.

Relatives told us people were safe at the service because staff were skilled and knew how to care for them well. Staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and knew who to contact if safeguarding concerns were raised.

Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service. The provider was improving their recruitment processes further to ensure they recruited suitable staff. Staff received an induction to the organisation, which included working alongside other more experienced staff, and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and the manager had taken the required action if they felt people were being deprived of their liberty. Capacity assessments were decision specific in line with the principles of the Act.

People were assisted with their nutrition and to manage their health needs. Staff referred people to other health professionals for further support if they had any concerns.

People received support from staff they were familiar with who provided the support as outlined in their care plans. There were enough staff to care for people.

Relatives told us staff were kind and caring and had the right attitude and skills to provide the care people required. People were supported with dignity and respect. Staff encouraged people to be independent.

Care records contained relevant information for staff to help them provide personalised care including processes to minimise risks to people’s safety. Care records were in the process of being reviewed by the manager. People received their medicines when required from staff trained to administer them. Senior staff checked that staff remained competent to do this.

People and their relatives knew how to complain and had opportunities to share their views and opinions about the service they received. This was through meetings and surveys.

Staff were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the manager knowing they would be listened to and acted on. People and staff told us the management team were available and responsive.

The manager gave the staff team formal opportunities to discuss any issues or raise concerns at individual and team meetings. There were processes to monitor th

We carried out this inspection on 30 June 2016 and it was announced. We gave the registered manager 24 hours of our visit, so they could ensure that staff and people who used the service would be available to speak with us.

Select Lifestyles Limited is a residential home which provides care for up to six people with a learning disability in Solihull. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since 2014. 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 and staff told us people who used the service were safe. Staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and knew what actions to take if they had any concerns. Risks to people’s safety were identified and ways to how to manage and reduce these risks were documented.

There were enough staff to care for the people they supported and checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service. Staff received an induction into the organisation, and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively.

People and relatives told us staff were caring and had the right skills and experience to provide the care required. People were supported with dignity and respect and people were given a choice in relation to how they spent their time.

Staff encouraged people to be independent. Care plans contained information for staff to help them provide personalised care.

People received medicines from senior staff who were trained and medicines were administered safely.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how to support people with decision making, which included arranging further support when this was required.

People had enough to eat and drink during the day, were offered choices, and enjoyed the meals provided.

People were assisted to manage their health needs, with referrals to other health professionals where this was required. Some people felt that referrals were not always made in a timely way by the management team.

People had enough to do to keep them occupied and staff tailored activities to people’s individual interests.

People knew how to complain and complaints were documented and responded to. People were given the opportunity to feedback about the service they received.

Staff had mixed views as to whether they could raise concerns with the management team and whether they were approachable. There were formal opportunities for staff to do this at group and one to one meetings. Some staff felt that they would like to do more to support people at the home such as updating care records and administration of medicine.

There were processes to monitor the quality of service provided. There were other checks which ensured staff worked in line with the provider’s policies and procedures.

Checks of the environment were undertaken and staff knew the correct procedures to take in an emergency.

We had not received all the notifications required, to enable us to monitor the service.

Following our visit we received some further concerns from staff about the management of the service which we raised directly with the provider. They agreed they would discuss this with staff further.

This inspection was completed by one inspector. During our visit we spoke with the manager, the operations manager and the care staff on duty. The evidence we collected helped us to answer the following five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the safe?

The manager understood their responsibilities in relation to Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and told us they had responded to a request for information from the relevant body.

Routine maintenance checks and tests were carried out at the recommended intervals to ensure the building and environment remained safe for people.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the care and support needs of the people who lived in the home.

Is the service effective?

People had care and support information in place. Although this was basic, staff knew people's needs and were able to respond appropriately. People's care was evaluated regularly to ensure it was current and appropriate. The manager had commenced formal reviews of people's care and support plans.

Is the service caring?

Staff were observed to be kind and caring to people. People told us they liked the staff by nodding their heads and answering, "Yes" and "Yes, I do " when we asked.

We saw staff provided support at the preferred pace of the person concerned, and included them in conversations.

Is the service responsive?

People were supported to maintain their health through regular appointments with health and social care professionals as appropriate.

People were observed to respond positively to the manager and staff. The manager and staff clearly recognised people's communication methods and responded appropriately to them.

Is the service well led?

There was a quality assurance process in place which included seeking the views of people, their relatives, staff and associated healthcare professionals about the quality of the service provided. These views were used to make improvements to the service people received.

The health, safety and welfare of people was maintained as routine maintenance checks and tests were carried out as required.

There were six people who lived at 512-514 Stratford Road at the time of our visit. Some of the people who lived at the home had limited or no verbal communication. This meant we were unable to talk with them directly about the care and support they received. We spent most of our time in the communal areas observing people’s experience, talking with staff and watching how staff interacted with people.

Staff had a good knowledge of people's needs and responded appropriately. We saw staff were patient and respectful to people. People who lived in the home looked relaxed and interacted with staff and other people living in the home in a friendly way.

We saw people were offered choices throughout our visit, for example what they wanted to eat and drink and how they wished to spend their day. Two people went out for lunch. When they returned one person said they had been to a ‘Carvery’ and had enjoyed their meal.

People indicated they were happy living at the home. One person said "I like it here.” Another person smiled when we asked if it was a nice place to live.

Plans we looked at provided staff with good information about the care and support people required. Plans were personalised to meet the needs of each person.

Records confirmed the service co-operated with other professionals involved with peoples care, such as day centres, GP’s and other healthcare professionals when necessary.

We found there was a safe procedure for assisting people with medication. Medication was stored safely and there was a process in place for checking people received their medication as prescribed.

Records showed staff had been checked properly before they started to work in the home. Staff we spoke with had the necessary skills and experience to work with people who used the service.

The home had a complaints procedure for raising concerns. Most of the people living at the home would require support to raise concerns. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people’s communication and behaviours and would have been able to identify if people were unhappy. We were told the home would involve relatives or advocates to support people to raise their concerns if needed.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

All five people living at the home were present during our visit. To gain insight of the care and services provided we observed and where possible spoke to people using the service. We reviewed notes for all five people at the home, observed policies and practice, saw three staff records and spoke to four members of staff.

We observed people using the service throughout the day. One person went to a day centre and one out for lunch and shopping. Two stayed in the home listening to music or watching TV. One person remained in bed. We saw that people using the service were able to personalise their own rooms and that the home was comfortable.

Staff showed a good knowledge of people living at the home and there was good rapport between them. There were three people on duty and the operations manager visited to conduct a spot check and update documentation. Staff told us they liked working there.

People we spoke to said they liked living there and the staff were nice. Two of the people had a good range of activities planned each week according to the records we viewed. The other three people using the service did not benefit from the same level of activities and this will be reviewed following our visit.