We carried out this announced inspection on 10 July 2017. We gave the service a short period of notice. This was because the people who lived there had complex needs for care and benefited from knowing in advance that we would be calling.

SENSE – 25 Old Mill Park is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for six people who have a learning disability and/or a sensory disability. At the time of our inspection visit there were five people living in the service.

The service was run by a charitable body that was the registered provider. There was a manager in post who had applied to be registered by 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. While the manager’s application for registration was being dealt with, they were being assisted by the person who was previously the registered manager for the service. In this report when we speak about the charitable body who ran the service we refer to them as being, ‘the registered person’.

At the last inspection on 26 May 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Care staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse. People had been supported to take reasonable risks while at the same time avoiding preventable accidents. Medicines were safely managed and there were enough staff on duty. Background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed.

Care staff knew how to care for people in the right way. This included knowing how to communicate with the people who lived in the service most of whom used personal forms of sign assisted language. People enjoyed their meals and they had been helped to obtain all of the healthcare assistance they needed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with compassion and respect. Care staff recognised people’s right to privacy and promoted their dignity. There were arrangements to help people access independent lay advocates and confidential information was kept private.

People had been consulted about the care they received and they had been given all of the assistance they needed. People had been supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. There were arrangements for quickly and fairly resolving complaints.

People had been consulted about the development of their home and quality checks had been completed. Care staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns and good team work was promoted. People had benefited from care staff acting upon good practice guidance.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This was an announced inspection carried out on 26 May 2015.

There was a registered manager in post, although she was not available to speak 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.

SENSE 25 Old Mill Park can provide accommodation for up to six people who have a learning disability or who live with reduced vision and hearing.

There were five people living in the service at the time of our inspection.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a registered person applies the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. The safeguards are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to deprive them of their liberty. This is usually to protect themselves. At the time of our inspection the registered persons had consulted with the relevant local authorities who had determined if people were being deprived of their liberty and so needed to have their rights protected.

Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns so that people were kept safe from harm. People were helped to avoid having accidents and their medicines were safely managed. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.

Staff had received the training and guidance they needed to assist people in the right way including helping them to eat and drink enough. People had received all of the healthcare assistance they needed. Staff had ensured that people’s rights were respected. This was because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice was followed to ensure that whenever possible people were supported to make decisions for themselves. In addition, staff observed the safeguards made by the law to protect people’s rights when decisions needed to be made on their behalf.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff recognised people’s right to privacy, respected confidential information and promoted people’s dignity.

People had received all of the care they needed including people who had special communication needs or who were at risk of becoming distressed. People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive and they were supported to celebrate their diversity. Staff had offered people the opportunity to pursue their interests and hobbies. There was a system for resolving complaints.

People had been consulted about the development of the service and regular quality checks had been completed. The service was run in an open and inclusive way and people had benefited from staff receiving good practice guidance.

There were five people living at the home on the day of our inspection. We met three of the people living there but due to their needs they were unable to tell us their experiences of the home. Therefore, we spent time observing how staff interacted with and supported them.

Staff communicated with each person in a way that they understood so they could be involved in making choices about their lives.

We observed people were encouraged to do things for themselves, so promoting their independence skills and self esteem.

We saw that people were supported to have regular health checks to ensure their well being. People were given opportunities to try out different activities and experience new things to develop their skills and interests.

We observed staff communicating individually with people, giving them choices. It was not always possible for people living at the home to communicate freely, but the were daily log books were detailed and up to date. They were completed by staff at the day service as well as the home and gave a good account of activities, mood and any incidents. This method assisted in the consistent and overall care of individuals.

People indicated that they felt safe and secure in their home and they appeared comfortable with the staff caring for them. The manager and staff told us that they always communicated with people individually on a daily basis and checked if people were satisfied with their care.

We looked at three people’s care records which included their care plans, risk assessments and health plans. These were clear, person-centred, detailed and provided up to date information on how their diverse needs should be met.

Records showed people were weighed monthly. People also had a functional vision and hearing assessment annually as well as a general health check at the local GP practice.

Our conversations with staff showed infection control was given a high priority and there were clear procedures to follow. We looked in the bathrooms and observed paper hand towels and appropriate hand washing gels were provided. Bathrooms were clean and free from clutter.

We reviewed the medications administration records (MARs) and found them to be accurate. This meant people were receiving prescribed medicines as directed.

We reviewed the staff rotas. We saw all shifts for the previous four weeks and the next four weeks had been covered.