This inspection took place on 15 September 2016 and was announced.

The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provided a supported living service; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Springvale Supported Living is a supported living service that provides care and support for up to six people living with autism and moderate to severe learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were six people living at the service.

The service had a manager in place that had applied to the commission to become the 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were protected against the risk of harm and abuse. The service had comprehensive and robust systems in place that gave staff guidance on how to minimise known risks. Risk assessments identified risks and gave staff techniques to safely and effectively support people. Staff regularly reviewed risk assessments to reflect people’s changing needs.

People were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully. Both the manager and staff were aware of the correct procedure should someone be unable to give their consent. The manager and staff had sufficient knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and their responsibilities within the legal framework.

The service ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, vetted and skilled staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing ratios were based on people’s needs and were flexible. The service had robust recruitment systems in place to ensure staff were deemed suitable to support people. The manager ensured the necessary recruitment checks were in place prior to staff being employed. Records showed staff had undertaken an extensive induction programme to increase, monitor and vet their competence.

People received their medicines safely. The service supported people to have their medicines as prescribed. Medicine administration recording [MAR] sheets, documented the dose, route and name of the medicine. The manager took responsive action to address any errors identified in a timely manner.

People’s consent was sought prior to care and treatment being delivered. Staff used a wide range of communication tools to gather people’s consent and ensure people understood what was being asked. Staff were aware of people’s preferences in communicating which were clearly documented.

People were supported by staff that had undergone the necessary training to meet their needs. The service provided all staff with mandatory training in fire safety, safe management of medicines, MCA and safeguarding. Staff were encouraged to undertake additional training which was specific to the needs of people they supported. For example, behavioural intervention and Makaton. Makaton uses speech with signs (gestures) and symbols (pictures) to help people communicate. Staff were able to request additional training they felt would enhance their skills and knowledge. Staff received regular supervisions and annual appraisals. Staff were given the opportunity to spend one to one time with the manager to discuss their roles and responsibilities, areas for improvement and additional training they may require.

People were encouraged to maintain a balanced diet that met their nutritional needs. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and were observed encouraging people to make healthy choices. People were given access to food and drink at all times. People were supported to access health care professionals to ensure their health and well-being was monitored, maintained and improved. Staff followed guidance given by health care professionals.

People were supported b

The people who use the service were not able to verbally communicate with us, or had very limited ability to do so. Therefore we spent time looking at care records, talking to staff and observing interactions with the staff and the people using the service to determine how their needs were being met and to understand their individual experience of the service.

The provider told us that people who use the service are supported to reach their full potential and be as independent as they can. The provider’s ethos is ‘Your Life….Your Way’. All of the people were funded by local authorities and were in receipt of a personal budget. A personal budget allows people in need of care and support, to have more control over their care provision. The provider supported people to make choices about how they used their personal budget. Representatives of people who use the service told us that the provider helps their relatives to make choices and that their relatives were happy, content and had an active social life.

We evidenced that the provider used a variety of methods to ensure that people who use the service were fully involved and where possible to, were able to consent to the care, support and treatment they received. Communication methods used by the provider included the use of makaton, picture boards and visual aids.

One representative of person who uses the service told us that “the staff at Springvale Supported Living are second to none” and that they had a good rapport with the provider and support workers. Representatives also told us that they were kept fully updated about their relatives care needs.

The provider had a good understanding of adult safeguarding and staff understood their role and responsibilities in the safeguarding of adults at risk of harm. The staff we spoke with knew how to raise concerns and how to reduce risk of harm occurring.

The provider had an audit framework and audits were carried out monthly as to ensure that the quality of the service was maintained to a high standard and that actions to rectify concerns were taken within reasonable timescales.