We carried out this announced inspection on 8 August 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 – 32a Broadgate Lane 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 six people living in the service. Most of the people did not have sight and/or hearing. In addition, all of them had special communication needs and used personal forms of sign assisted language.

The service was run by a charitable body that was the registered provider. 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. In this report when we speak about both the charitable body who ran the service and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At the last inspection on 20 July 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 including financial mistreatment. People had been supported to take reasonable risks while also being helped to avoid preventable accidents. Medicines were safely managed. There were enough care staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed.

Care staff had received training and guidance and they knew how to care for people in the right way. This included using a number of innovative techniques to communicate with people. People enjoyed their meals and were supported to eat and drink enough. In addition, 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. People had been supported to access independent lay advocates when necessary and confidential information was kept private.

Care staff had involved people and their relatives in making decisions about the care that was provided. People had been had been supported to be as independent as possible and they had been helped 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. There was an established staff team and good team work was promoted. Care staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns and 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 20 July 2015.

There was a manager who had been in post since May 2015. They had applied to be registered. 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 32a Broadgate Lane can provide accommodation for up to six people who have a learning disability and who live with reduced hearing and vision.

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

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply 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 manager and registered person had consulted with the relevant local authorities who were deciding if five of the people were being deprived of their liberty and so needed to have their rights protected. The necessary permission had been given in relation to a sixth person who was being deprived of their liberty.

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. This included helping them to be as independent as possible and to eat and drink enough. People had received all of the healthcare assistance they needed including dental care. Staff had correctly used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice to ensure that whenever possible people were supported to make decisions for themselves. In addition, staff had used the safeguards in 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 express their individuality. Staff had assisted people to pursue a range of 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.

We visited people using the service. There were six people using the service. When we arrived three people were out at the cinema and one person was on holiday.

We toured the building and reviewed two people’s care files. We spoke to relatives of two people who lived there. One relative told us they had been working with care staff to arrange for their relative to visit them for a break. They said they participated in meetings twice a year to discuss their relatives care. They said their relative had become more independent since moving to the home and they were continuing to develop. They told us they were very happy with the service.

Another relative told us they had spent time looking for a service suitable for their relative before deciding on this one. They said "The service had lived up to their hopes and expectations.”

We found that staff were aware of their responsibility for protecting people from the risk of abuse.

We toured the building and looked at the facilities provided for people. We found the premises were suitable for people using the service.

A quality audit for the service was undertaken in July 2013 by the provider's quality team which showed the aspects of care reviewed were good or excellent. Other audits had also been undertaken which were concerned with the safety of the service and improving support to individuals.

On the day we visited there were five people living at the Sense 32a Broadgate. All of the people were at the home at some time during our visit. However we were unable to gain people's views because of the different ways people communicated. We spent time observing care, speaking with staff and reviewing records to see what it was like to live at the home.

Staff told us they looked for verbal and non-verbal methods of consent when giving care to people. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care, the manager, family and other professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interest.

We could see people were happy and relaxed in the home. There were good relationships between people and the care workers.

We saw the home was clean and tidy. Staff were able to describe how they worked to reduce the risk of infection.

We saw there were systems in place which ensured medication was available for people when needed.

Records showed staff were supported to access training. Staff told us and records showed received regular supervisions and annual appraisals.

In view of the communication needs of the people who use the service, we relied on information we received from the manager.

In view of the communication needs of the people who use the service, we relied on the observations between the staff and people who use the service. Information provided by the staff and the service provider.

We spoke with two staff during our visit. Staff were very positive about working in the

home and praised the teamwork and supportive atmosphere.