This inspection took place on 6 and 9 July 2018 and was announced.

This service provides care and support to adults with a learning disability and autism living in a supported living setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. There were four people being supported by this service at the time of the inspection.

The registered manager had recently resigned from their post and the nominated individual told us they would be applying to cancel their registration. The nominated individual told us another manager was now managing the service and would be applying to register to manage the regulated activity. 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.

This was the first inspection of the Sheiling Living service since it was registered in September 2017.

Robust governance and quality monitoring systems were not being completed regularly, established or embedded within the service. This meant that some areas for improvement to keep people safe had not been identified. This was a breach of the regulations. The nominated individual shared with us their plan to improve arrangements for governance to ensure standards were met and people received a quality service.

Incident reporting systems were not always effective to ensure all required actions were taken and support required by staff was given. This was a breach of the regulations.

We had not received notifications regarding safeguarding concerns that the provider had responded to. A notification is how providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. This was a breach of the services registration requirements.

Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received training in safeguarding. Professionals, staff and relatives told us they had no concerns relating to abuse or safeguarding. The management team had followed their internal safeguarding protocols following incidents and actions had been taken to safeguard people. However, the provider had not reported the incidents to the local authority in line with safeguarding vulnerable adults' procedures or informed CQC. This was a breach of the regulations.

Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Some improvements were required to checks of the temperature of medicine storage areas.

There were sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff at the home however some concerns were shared with us that staff were not always directed effectively to meet people’s needs.

There were arrangements in place for infection control and food hygiene.

Lessons had been identified when things went wrong. This included identifying changes required to meet people’s needs in the future.

Improvements were required to ensure all staff were supported to carry out their roles. The majority of staff told us they had felt more supported recently and they were now receiving supervision and morale had improved.

Improvements were required to the arrangements for mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions to ensure the service meets the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We have made a recommendation about arrangements for recording consent to care.

People were supported to access healthcare appointments as and when required and staff followed health care professional’s advice when supporting