We inspected this service on 28 February 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous inspection in April 2015, we found that the service met the legal requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people. People who use the service have a learning disability and or a mental health condition. At the time of our inspection six people were using the service.

The service 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff understood how to keep people safe and people were involved in the assessment and management of risks to their health, safety and wellbeing. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff knew how to recognise and report potential abuse. Safe staffing levels were maintained to promote people’s safety and to ensure people participated in activities of their choosing.

People’s health and wellbeing needs were monitored and people were supported to access health and social care professionals as required. People could eat meals that met their individual preferences.

Staff supported people to make decisions about their care and when people were unable to make these decisions for themselves, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. At the time of our inspection, no one was being restricted under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). However, staff knew how to apply for a DoLS authorisation if this was required.

Staff received regular training that provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

People were treated with care, kindness and respect and staff promoted people’s independence and right to privacy.

People were supported and enabled to make choices about their care and the choices people made were respected by the staff.

People were involved in the assessment and review of their care and people worked with staff to set goals to improve their health and wellbeing.

Staff supported people to access the community and participate in activities that met their individual preferences.

Staff sought and listened to people’s views about the care and action was taken to make improvements to care. People understood how to complain about their care and a suitable complaints procedure was in place.

People and staff told us that the registered manager was supportive and approachable. The registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained.

The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration with us and they notified us of reportable incidents as required.

We inspected this service on 20 February 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.

The service was registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people. People who use the service have a learning disability and/or mental health needs.

At the time of our inspection six people were using the service.

The service 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People’s safety was maintained in a manner that promoted their independence. Staff understood how to keep people safe and they helped people to understand risks. Medicines were managed safely by the staff and people were enabled to administer their own medicines when this was appropriate.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and keep people safe. Staff received regular training that provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff told us the registered manager monitored and helped them to meet their training needs.

People could access suitable amounts of food and drink and healthy eating was promoted. People’s health and wellbeing needs were monitored and people were supported to attend both urgent and routine health appointments as required.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and staff promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. Staff supported people to make decisions about their care by helping people to understand the information they needed to make informed decisions.

Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and support. However, some people who used the service were unable to make certain decisions about their care. In these circumstances the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed.

People were involved in the assessment and review of their care and staff supported and encouraged people to access the community and maintain relationships with their families and friends.

Staff sought and listened to people’s views about the care and action was taken to make improvements to care as a result of people’s views and experiences. People understood how to complain about their care and we saw that complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints procedure.

There was a positive atmosphere within the home and the registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration with us and they and the provider kept up to date with changes in health and social care regulation.

During our inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, two members of care staff and the registered manager. People told us they were happy with their care. One person told us, “This is a nice place”. Another person said, "I like the house and the staff”.

We saw that people’s agreement was gained before staff provided care or support and people were able to make choices about the support they received and the food they ate.

People were safe because the staff understood people’s needs, and support was provided in a caring and professional manner, by staff who had completed the required training.

People were protected from the risk of infection and the risks associated with medicines, because effective systems were in place to reduce and manage these risks.

We saw that there was a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to the people who used the service. People told us they would be happy to tell staff if they were unhappy with their care.

People we spoke with told us they were happy living at Shamu. One person said, "I've lived here for a long time. I'm okay".

We observed people were able to freely move around their home, no area had restricted access. This meant peoples rights were respected. We saw that people had their own bedroom door keys and took responsibility for their own household tasks with support as was necessary from the staff team.

We looked at care records to establish if people's needs had been assessed and staff had the information they may need to support people. Records reflected the support people told us they needed.

We asked people if they felt safe living at Shamu. No one raised any concerns and they told us that they knew who they could go to if they were unhappy or had a complaint.

Since our last inspection of this service the provider had been seeking to recruit a permanent manager. The interim manager confirmed that a new manager had been recruited and was soon to commence employment.

We looked at staff records to ensure there were sufficient staff on duty to support people and that the staff had access to the training they needed and were required to undertake. We saw that staff had received training to meet people's needs.

We looked to see if the provider monitored the quality of the service to ensure that good standards of care and support were provided. Systems were in place to evidence that improvements were being continually made.

We carried out this inspection because we had not visited the service since 2008 and we did not have enough information about the service to assess compliance. We wanted to see what life was like for the people who lived in the home.

We visited the service and spoke to people using the service and staff. We looked at records of care, staff rota's, staff recruitment records and observed the environment.

We observed how staff and users of the service interacted and talked to people about the things they did and what they liked about the service. We saw that weekly meetings took place so that people could plan the things they wanted to do and choose to eat for the following week. We spoke to people using the service about the things they did. We were told that they enjoyed going to the pub, local craft centres and shopping. We looked at records of activity for one person and noted that they had limited opportunities for occupation.

We saw that people had care plans in place and they confirmed that staff spoke to them about them. In one example we saw that the person had confirmed consent to medication and confirmed that they had been involved in their needs assessment.

People told us they were happy living at the home, they showed that they were able to choose what they wanted to do and the meals they had.

Before our visit we contacted other people who may have had an interest in the service such as fire safety officers, environmental health, and local involvement networks (LINks). LINks are groups of individual members of the public and local voluntary and community groups who work together to improve health and social care services. To do this they gather the views of local people. No concerns were identified by any of these agencies.

We looked at staffing levels to determine if sufficient staff were deployed to meet people's needs. We found that people's rights and choices had been compromised because of the staffing levels.