This unannounced inspection took place on 07 June 2017.

St Anne’s Community Services -Creykes Lodge provides personal care and accommodation for up to six adults with complex learning disabilities. The premises consist of a detached bungalow on the main road in the village of Rawcliffe, on a bus route; The home is situated close to local amenities, and the towns of Goole and Selby. The home offers single room accommodation. Six people were residing at the home on the day of the inspection visit.

At the last inspection in December 2014 the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service was meeting all the fundamental standards and the service remained ‘Good’.

At this inspection visit carried out in June 2017, we saw that staffing levels met the personal needs of each person who lived at the home. People were relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff. We saw staff attending to the needs of people in a timely manner.

Arrangements were in place to protect people from risk of abuse. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were aware of their responsibilities for reporting any concerns.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure checks were made on staff prior to them starting work. This allowed the service to check people’s suitability for working with vulnerable people.

Suitable arrangements were in place for managing and administering medicines for people. Good practice guidelines were consistently followed.

People were encouraged to pursue activities of their own choosing and were supported to live active lives within their community.

Care plans were in place for people who lived at the home. Care plans covered support needs and personal wishes. Plans were reviewed and updated at regular intervals and information was sought from appropriate professionals as and when required.

The service had systems in place to monitor and manage risks. Staff were encouraged to work proactively to assess and manage risk.

Relatives described staff as “knowledgeable.” We saw evidence of staff being provided with support and training. Staff told us they were supported in their role by their fellow team members and senior managers.

People were supported to have their dietary and nutritional needs met. People’s preferences were taken into consideration at meal times.

The registered manager had an active presence at the home. This enabled them to have a good oversight of what occurred at the home and this contributed to positive outcomes for people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

The manager had implemented a range of assurance systems to monitor quality and effectiveness of the service provided. We saw audits were routinely carried out.

Staff told us that Creykes Lodge was a good place to work. Staff praised the management and the way in which the service was run. They told us communication was good and described the managers as caring and approachable.

The inspection took place on the 4 December 2014. The inspection was unannounced. At the last inspection the service was fully compliant with the regulations and no improvements were required.

Creykes Lodge provides personal care and accommodation for up to six adults with a learning disability. The premises consist of a detached bungalow that is located on the main road in the village of Rawcliffe. The home is on a bus route, close to local amenities, and the towns of Goole and Selby. The home offers only single room accommodation.

We tried to carry out a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during our visit. This is a way of observing the care and interactions people receive to capture their experiences when they may not be able to tell us themselves. However it was clear that people were not comfortable being observed in this manner so we used other methods to observe and monitor the care people received.

The service had safeguarding vulnerable adult’s policies and procedures which were understood by staff. Staff received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and all those spoken with confirmed that they would tell someone should any aspect of poor care be observed.

We observed staff engaging with people in a respectful and supportive manner. We observed staff responding to people quickly and saw that they knew and understood their needs.

Staff understood individual risks to people and worked with them to minimise these risks whilst also supporting them to remain as independent as possible. Behaviour management strategies were in place which were regularly reviewed and updated although we discussed how it would be positive to see more input with these from a multi-disciplinary team.

Staffing numbers were in the process of being increased which staff said would be positive for the service. We received positive feedback regarding the staff and we observed warm friendly relationships between people living and working at the home.

Recruitment systems were robust and appropriate checks were completed before people started work.

A range of training was provided for all staff which staff told us supported them in their roles. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the MCA (Mental Capacity Act 2005) legislation which is in place for people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. The legislation is designed to ensure that any decisions are made in people’s best interests.

We saw that meals were social occasions and observed a choice of food was available. People were supported appropriately during mealtimes.

We observed staff treating people with kindness and compassion throughout our visit. Professionals also spoke highly of the service and the way in which people were cared for.

We observed that the registered manager and staff responded to people’s needs. Each person had individual care records which focused on them as a person. They received a range of social opportunities and could choose how to spend their time.

People had their health needs monitored and input from other professionals was sought where necessary. Medication systems were well managed with clear records in place.

Professionals and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and there was a strong caring ethos evident throughout our visit.

There were a number of quality monitoring systems in place which focused on reviewing and improving the service on a continual basis. The home had not received any recent complaints; they told us this was because they dealt with any concerns immediately.

People who lived in the home were supported though a system of assessment and care planning to have their needs met. Support was person centred and people were able to access other professionals to help in the meeting of their needs.

We observed good interactions between the people who lived in the home and the staff team; when we spoke with staff they were knowledgeable about the needs of people.

People lived in a well maintained home that was clean, warm and comfortable.

Duty rotas reflected varying staffing levels to account for times when additional staffing was required to support people with activities.

Quality assurance systems were in place to audit varying areas of the home to ensure that standards were met. There was a complaint system in place and staff were aware of how to raise complaints; record keeping for complaints required improvement.

Some people who lived in the home had complex needs and we were unable to verbally communicate with them about their views and experiences.