This inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 October 2016.

50a Avis Road is a purpose built care home, which provides personal care and accommodation for up to five people with complex learning and physical disabilities. At the time of this inspection there were four people using the service.

The last inspection of the home was carried out May 2014, there were no concerns raised at that inspection.

There was a registered manager at the home who had the qualification, skills and knowledge to manage the home. 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.

The registered manager was appropriate qualifications and experienced to manage the home. They had experience of supporting people with learning disabilities and continued to develop further skills and knowledge by on going training. The registered manager had managed the home for many years and had on going support from the provider and other managers within the organisation.

The culture of the service was to provide high quality person centred care for the people who used the service. The registered manager told us, “The vision of the service is that everyone no matter what their life experiences, background or challenges will have opportunities to live their lives to the full living at 50a Avis Road”.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs in an unhurried and relaxed manner. People told us they “Got help when they wanted it”. One relative felt their relative did not go out as often as they did in the past to chosen activities, but also felt their relative was “Well cared for”.

Risks of abuse were reduced because there were effective recruitment and selection processes for new staff. This included carrying out checks to make sure new staff were safe to work with vulnerable adults. Staff were not allowed to start work until satisfactory checks and employment references had been obtained.

Staff received training to understand their roles and to ensure the care and support provided to people were person centred, meeting their individual needs. People were supported by a consistent staff team who had worked alongside them for many years. Staff morale was seen to be high. Staff enjoyed working at the home and spoke positively of the support the management team provided.

Staff received supervision and appraisals and told us they felt supported by the registered manager. One relative told us, “The staff team are very skilled in their job. We see them supporting people with such skill. It is amazing care very person centred”.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse all staff had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff were clear about how to report concerns and said they were confident action would always be taken to keep people safe. There were posters in the home giving people and staff details of who to contact if they felt unable to raise their concerns within the home.

Systems were in place to manage risks, safeguarding matters and medication which ensured people's safety. Where people displayed behaviour that needed additional support, behaviour support plans guided staff and helped them to manage situations in a consistent and positive way. Staff were aware of individual guidelines and how to support people appropriately.

Care plans provided information about how people wished to be cared for as well as detailed information on their physical and mental health needs. This meant staff were able to identify health concerns especially for people who were unable to communicate verbally.

People were able to take part in activities both at the home and in the local community. The home had access to two vehicles w

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People who used the service were protected from abuse because the service had systems in place to ensure that any possibility of abuse was identified, and the appropriate action was taken to prevent abuse from happening.

We found that there was a comprehensive safeguarding policy and procedure in place at the service. The discussions we had with members of staff indicated that they were aware of safeguarding issues as well as the Whistle Blowing Policy and that they would be able to raise a safeguarding alert if required.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit it.

We found that there were adequate numbers of staff with a good skill mix and experience on duty during the inspection. We noted that there were on call arrangements in place in case of emergencies, and good support from the management team to ensure that people’s needs were met.

Is the service effective?

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, decisions made on their behalf had their best interest and human rights taken into consideration. People were supported to make choices and decisions and have control over their lives.

We observed that staff spoke with people and gained their consent before providing support or assistance. This was done in a respectful manner and it was apparent that people felt at ease in expressing their choice.

People had their individual needs assessed and reviewed on a regular basis. We noted that each person had a key worker who would work with them to ensure that the individual understood their rights and importance in making their own decision.

People who used the service had benefited from care and treatment that had been tailored for the individual. Relatives of people who used the service commented about the relaxed and supported care delivery from care staff. They told us that staff were courteous, treated people as an individual and attended to their needs with minimal fuss.

Is the service caring?

We observed how people who used the service were treated with respect and dignity by staff. We found that people were involved in all aspect of the care and supported in their decision making. Feedback from relatives confirmed how well their loved ones were treated and cared for by the staff team. They felt that there was a relax atmosphere at the service and people were encouraged and supported to lead a fulfilling life as much as possible.

Everyone living at the service had a person centred plan that had been reviewed on a regular basis. This meant that people received appropriate care and treatment to meet their current needs.

Is the service responsive?

There was a range of activities on offer at the service. These activities were people led rather than service led. The service provided a mini bus and adapted vehicles for people who used the service, enabling them to access a range of outdoor activities.

People who used the service were supported to maintain links with their family and friends.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a comprehensive quality assurance system. We saw evidence that an action plan had been written and implemented in a timely fashion as result of feedback from satisfaction survey sent to relatives.

We saw minutes from team meetings and action plans were in place to ensure that where shortfalls had been identified, they had been addressed within an acceptable time scale. This helped to ensure that the service was continuously improving and people's views had been taken into consideration.

It was apparent that the staff team were committed and well led by management. Staff told us that they were aware of the importance of the various audit tools in place. This meant that staff and management of the service were monitoring the quality of service delivered to ensure that people who used the service were having a good quality of service at all times.

During our inspection we found that the premises were clean and generally well maintained and the atmosphere was relaxed and homely.

Care workers had developed awareness and a sound understanding of each individual's care and support needs. We found that comprehensive and well maintained person centred support plans enabled care workers to meet people's assessed needs in a structured and consistent manner.

People using the service were cared for by staff who were appropriately trained to meet their needs. Care workers received supervision of their practice and had their performance appraised regularly.

A range of activities were available promoting social stimulation and community involvement. A relative told us: “They have a better social life than we do”.

None of the people using the service were able to communicate verbally. However positive comments from their relatives indicated a high level of satisfaction with the home and the services provided.

“I’m very happy with the home. It is such a stimulating environment and the staff are dedicated, professional and understand the needs of the residents”.

“My daughter is settled, safe and very happy. She has everything she needs there”.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to storing, administering handling and recording medicines.

People were confident that their comments and complaints would be listened to and dealt with effectively.

During our visit, we found that people living in the home were settled and content, their assessed needs were being met and they were clearly well cared for. This was reinforced by positive comments received and also evident from direct observation of effective interaction and of individuals being supported in a professional, sensitive and respectful manner.

We were told that, in accordance with their identified wishes and individual support plans, people are encouraged and enabled, as far as practicable, to make choices about their daily lives.