5 Shalnecote Grove is a care home for up to nine people who have a learning disability and sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection eight people were living at this home.

At the last inspection on 9 October 2014 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we judged that the service provided remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People received the support they required to live a full and active life, while maintaining their safety and well- being. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and the registered provider had established robust recruitment checks to ensure new staff were suitable to work in adult social care.

Risks relating to people’s healthcare needs and lifestyle had been assessed. Staff were aware of the support people needed in these areas, and we saw staff providing support that was consistent with these assessments.

All of the people who lived at the home required the support of staff to manage their medicines. Staff responsible for administering medicines had been trained and assessed to be competent. There were effective systems in place to make sure people received their prescribed medicines.

Staff had received training and support to ensure they were aware of people’s needs and how to meet them. People received the help they required to maintain good health, to attend health appointments and have enough to eat and drink.

People were supported, as far as possible to have choice and staff supported people in the least restrictive ways possible. When restrictions on people’s liberty were necessary the registered manager had ensured the correct applications had been made to protect each person’s legal rights.

The staff we met knew people well, and were able to tell us about their needs and preferences. Staff had involved people that knew the person well and used their knowledge of the person to plan care that they felt was in the person’s best interest and best fitted their known preferences and wishes. Staff were extremely caring in their approach to people.

A range of activities and opportunities were provided each day that were tailored to each person’s needs and preferences. People had been supported to maintain links with people, places and activities that were important to them, and which they had enjoyed.

We received consistent feedback that the home was well run, and that the registered manager and deputy managers were supportive and promoted good practice.

The registered manager had stayed up to date with changes and developments in adult social care, and had ensured they had a good knowledge of the specific care needs of people living at this home. The registered manager and registered provider had a wide range of checks and audits in place that ensured the on-going safety and quality of the service. These had been effective at providing assurances that the service remained good, and that the service was meeting people’s needs.

This inspection was undertaken on 9 October 2014 and was unannounced. This meant that the staff and provider did not have notice that we would be visiting. Our findings from this inspection confirmed that the provider was not in breach of any regulations.

5 Shalnecote Grove is a care home that consists of individual flats, there are no communal areas with the exception of an office and staff areas.  The home provides accommodation and care for up to six people who have a learning disability and who are living with one or more sensory impairments.  People were unable to communicate with us verbally but expressed their feelings through non-verbal communication.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

We saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Relatives of people told us they felt the service kept people safe. Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of procedures in connection with the prevention of abuse. The health and welfare needs of people were met because there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty who had appropriate skills and experience. Staff received appropriate training and were knowledgeable about the needs of people using the service.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including when balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment. This includes decisions about depriving people of their liberty so that they get the care and treatment they need where there is no less restrictive way of achieving this. DoLS require providers to submit applications to a ‘Supervisory Body’, the appropriate local authority, for authority to do so. We found that the home had complied with the requirements of MCA and DoLS.

People were appropriately supported and had sufficient food and drink to maintain a healthy diet.  People living at the home had been assessed for the risks associated with eating and drinking and care plans had been created for those people who were identified as being at risk. Where staff had concerns about a person’s nutrition they involved appropriate professionals to make sure people received the correct diet. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs.

We observed people being treated with dignity and respect. People’s relatives told us that the staff were kind, considerate and caring. It was apparent to us from our observations that staff were attentive, polite and sought consent before providing care and support.

People were supported to access healthcare services to maintain and promote their health and well-being. They were encouraged to make their rooms at the home their own personal space. People, their relatives or advocates had been involved in the development of the care plans which were reviewed on an annual basis, or more frequently if required. People were supported in a wide range of interests and hobbies, usually on an individual basis, which were suited to their needs.

There were management systems in place to monitor the quality of the home. The relatives of people told us they had found the management team approachable and told us they would raise any complaints or concerns should they need to. There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and changes were put in place to improve the service. This meant that people were benefiting from a service that was continually looking at how it could provide better care for people.

During our visit we met three of the six people living at the home, other people were out on community activities so we did not have the opportunity to meet them. As people living at the home were not able to tell us about their care we spoke to four relatives, six staff, the registered manager and observed the care given to people. We were not able to use a formal observational tool to assess people's experiences, as it would have been intrusive given that people live in their own individual flat. We also spoke with two care professionals after our visit.

We saw there were good interactions between the people who lived there and staff. Care was provided in line with people’s assessed needs and preferences. Care staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure that people understood what was going to happen. One relative told us, “I’m happy with the care.”

We looked at the management of people's medicines. We found improvements had been made following a concern raised so that people received the medication they were prescribed.

Improvements were needed to the premises to make sure it was in good condition and met people’s needs.

Staff received training and supervision that enabled them to meet people’s needs safely.

There were six people living at the home on the day of our visit. The provider did not know we were coming.

Most people using the service were not able to share their views of the service. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experience of people using the service. We spoke with one person at the home with assistance from a member of staff. After our visit we spoke with two relatives and an advocate of people who lived at the home.

Every one we spoke with was complimentary about the home. People told us that they were happy with the care provided.

We saw that staff were respectful to the people living in the home. Staff engaged with people to help them take part in activities. Staff understood the importance of respecting people's choices and personal preferences. They offered them choices of what they wanted to do and people looked happy.