The inspection took place on 8 February 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be coming. The inspection was planned partly in response to concerns raised with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about the management of a recent safeguarding concern at the provider's adjacent services.

At our last inspection 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.

16 Park View 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. 16 Park View provides care and support for up to eight people who have a learning disability, some of whom have a forensic background. Nursing care is not provided. There were eight people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The registered provider operates three separate services at Park View (numbers 14, 15 and 16). During this inspection we inspected all three services. Although the services are registered with the CQC individually we found that there were areas that were common to all three services. For example, training programme and delivery, joint staff meetings and one set of policies and procedures across all three services. For this reason some of the evidence we viewed was relevant to all three services.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Risk assessments clearly set out how staff should protect people who may be at risk of absconding, or at risk of harm from others.

Staff did not always ensure confidential information was appropriately locked away and the registered manager needed to review arrangements in place for monitoring the movement of some people between services.

People who used the service interacted well with staff and told us they felt safe. No relatives or external professionals we spoke with raised concerns about safety.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs and staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities.

All areas of the building were clean and processes were in place to reduce the risks of acquired infections. The premises were generally well maintained, with external servicing of equipment in place.

Pre-employment checks of staff were in place, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks, references and identity checks. These checks were refreshed after three years after external advice.

Medicines administration practices were safe and staff had been trained appropriately.

People had accessed external healthcare professionals such as GPs, psychiatrists, nurses and occupational therapists to get the support they needed. Staff liaised well with these professionals.

Staff received a range of mandatory training and training specific to people’s needs.

People were encouraged to have healthy diets and were protected from the risk of malnutrition, with meals being a communal, positive time.

The premises were appropriate for people’s needs and there were ample communal areas and bathing facilities.

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.

Relatives and e

This unannounced inspection took place on 21 September 2015, 25 September 2015 and 2 October 2015. As this home was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 December 2014, this was their first inspection.

S E L F Limited - 16 Park View provides care and support for up to eight people who have a learning disability. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of our inspection one person had been living in the home for five months.

The registered provider operates three separate services at Park View (numbers 14, 15 and 16). During this inspection we inspected all three services. Although the services are registered with the Care Quality Commission individually we found that there were areas that were common to all three services. For example, a single training programme, joint staff meetings and one set of policies and procedures across all three services. For this reason some of the evidence we viewed was relevant to all three services. Our findings for S E L F Limited - 14 Park View and S E L F Limited - 15 Park View are discussed in separate reports.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

The person using the service said they were happy with their care. They confirmed staff were kind and considerate. They commented, “Kind staff. They have lovely staff here”, and, “I love it here.”

We observed throughout our inspection good relationships between the person using the service and staff. We saw they were happy to engage with the staff team. Likewise staff responded positively with the person using the service.

The person using the service was supported to be as independent as possible. They took part in structured activities to improve and develop their life skills. Staff said they felt the home was a safe place for people to live.

We found staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and whistle blowing. They knew how to report concerns. They felt concerns would be dealt well. One staff member said they, “Hadn’t seen anything.” They also said, “Management would deal with it well. They are easily approachable.”

Potential risks had been assessed and control measures identified. The registered provider used photographs to personalise the risk assessments.

Medicines records across all three of the registered provider’s services supported the safe administration of medicines. Staff had received medicines training from an independent pharmacist.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. One staff member said, “There are more than enough [staff].”

Agreed recruitment and selection procedures had been followed. This included requesting and receiving references and carrying out disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks.

Health and safety checks were carried out to help keep the premises safe. This included checks of fire safety, emergency lighting, extinguishers, exit routes, gas and electrical safety. Incident and accident records confirmed action was taken following accidents to keep people safe.

Staff were well supported to fulfil their caring role. One staff member commented, “Very much supported.” Staff could have an ‘Individual Development Session’ anytime if they needed it. Staff received regular one to one supervision and appraisal.

Staff received all of the training they needed. Records confirmed completed training included specific workshops bespoke to the needs of individual people. Other training completed included risk management, moving and assisting, food hygiene, first aid and fire awareness.

The registered provider was following the requirements of the MCA. Some people using the registered provider’s services displayed behaviours that challenge. Personalised behaviour profiles gave details of best to support people needed when they were displaying behaviours that challenge. Detailed records of physical intervention showed it was only used as a last resort.

The person using the service said they were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They also had regular input from a range of health care professionals, such as GPs.

The person using the service had their care and support needs assessed, including identifying their care preferences. For example, taking part in community based activities and relaxing activities such as watching TV and listening to music. The assessment also considered the person’s ability to complete daily living tasks, such as eating, drinking, personal hygiene, cooking, cleaning and travelling independently. Detailed, person-centred care plans had been developed.

The person who used the service told us about their care plans and particular skills they were working on relating to their daily living. Key worker records showed the person met with their key worker to discuss the progress they had made.

The person using the service had opportunities to take part in activities both inside and outside of the home. These included outings and planned activities such as games, arts and crafts. They told us they usually spent time with people living in the other two Park View services.

The registered provider had a complaints procedure. No complaints had been received at the time of our inspection. People had opportunities to meet together to give their views.

The person using the service and staff told us the registered manager was approachable. They said, “The manager is kind.” One staff member said, “The manager is easily approachable.”

Staff said there was a positive atmosphere in the home. One staff member said, “I enjoy coming to work. The service users are lovely and the staff team are lovely.”

There were regular opportunities for staff to give their views. Staff said they had regular team meetings, handovers and start and end of duty meetings. One staff member said, “I have had a lot of help, there are staff meetings and handovers are done.” The registered provider consulted with staff and external professionals. We found positive feedback was received during the most recent consultation.

The registered provider carried out a quality audit to make sure people received good quality care. Audits included checks of fire safety, housekeeping, infection control, accidents, maintenance and medicines audits. The registered provider developed annual plans for improving the service.