This inspection took place on 30 and 31January 2016 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 8, 10 and 11 August 2014 and at the time was found to be meeting the regulations we looked at.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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.

Star Road Respite Services provides short-term accommodation and personal care for up to seven adults with physical and learning disabilities in order to give their carers a break from their caring responsibilities. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection. People were able to use the service for tea visits, day and overnight stays which also included weekends.

The service followed correct procedures with regards to administration and recording of regular medicines.

The service protected people from harm and abuse. Staff had good understanding of safeguarding procedures and family members told us they thought their relatives were safe at the service.

The service regularly assessed and reviewed risks to people’s health, wellbeing and welfare and had procedures in place to identify and manage these risks.

The service had various systems in place to ensure people lived in a safe environment.

The service had recruitment procedures to ensure only suitable staff were appointed to work with people who used the service. The service had sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff undertook regular training to be able to understand and respond to the complex needs of people using the respite service. Staff received effective support in the form of regular one to one supervision, and yearly appraisals of their practice.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met.

People received care that was person centred and reflected their care needs and individual preferences.

Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet that reflected their nutrition needs as well as cultural and religious preferences.

People were supported to maintain good health and they had access to healthcare services. The service worked closely with other healthcare professionals involved in each individual person’s care to ensure their needs were being met.

People received care that was compassionate and caring. Family members told us they were happy with how the service supported their relatives.

Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged the promotion of people’s individulaity . People were encouraged to engage in daily tasks and experience new activities outside the service.

Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy when providing personal care.

People using the service had access to a variety of activities at the service and in the local community.

The provider had a complaints procedure which was available in a pictorial format. Family members were encouraged to give their feedback about the care provided by the service via compliments and complaints cards and in three-monthly coffee mornings.

The service promoted a culture of ongoing and transparent communication about different aspects of service delivery. The registered manager promptly addressed any gaps in staff knowledge and performance.

The service had internal auditing and monitoring processes in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided.

The service worked closely with a range of external healthcare professionals to ensure high quality care provision and promote a multi-discipli

During our inspection we spoke with six people using the service, two relatives and four care workers to understand the service that was provided by the respite service.

People told us they enjoyed their stay at the service. One person said “I like it here, it gets me out”. Feedback from relatives showed that people were treated with respect and the staff were professional, polite and caring towards them. One relative said “they look after my family member very well, 100% I could not fault them”.

People received care and support that met their assessed needs in the way they preferred.

Equipment was available to meet people’s needs, regularly risk assessed and appropriately maintained to make sure it was safe for people to use.

People said they liked the staff and relatives told us they felt there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. One relative said “anything that I ask them to do for my family member they always try it out”.

People told us they could speak with staff if they had any concerns or worries. A relative commented “They always put things right, even if it is a trivial thing”.

People who use the service had a wide range of needs and abilities. We spent time with people observing how they were supported as they were not able to tell us directly about their views on the service.

We saw evidence of regular meetings held with people who use the service. This enabled people to make requests and share their opinions about the service. Information was also passed to people in these meetings on making a complaint and recognising and reporting safeguarding concerns.

We saw examples of staff listening to people's individual choices and engaging with people in a positive way. Staff involved some people in making drinks and supported others to have drinks in a respectful and unhurried manner. Staff described to us people’s needs and abilities, which were varied. They gave examples of how they supported people if their needs were high and where they had no or limited speech. For example staff said they watched a person’s body language and listened to the noises and sounds they made to see if they were happy or upset. Staff also used objects of reference as another form of communication to show people what objects they were talking about. This then encouraged people to be a part of making choices about how they spent their time at the service.

Relatives told us that staff respected the person’s rights and promoted their independence. They confirmed they were happy with the service provided and that it was “flexible and accommodating”. They also said they could attend the coffee mornings where they were able to hear any news about the service and provide their views. They said they felt the service was “well run”, staff “listen to me” and there were “open discussions” about the service.

We received positive feedback from healthcare professionals regarding the care people received. Comments included, “…there is a good standard of care”, staff offer choices and are “patient” and “there is effort made to find out what people need to make the stay happy and successful”.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection.  A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The inspection was announced two days in advance so that staff would be available at the service when we visited.

The service was last inspected on 25 October 2013 and at the time was found to be meeting the regulations we looked at.

The service provides short term accommodation and personal care for up to seven adults with physical and learning disabilities in order to give their carers a break from their caring responsibilities. There were seven people using the service at the time of our inspection. People were able to use the service for tea visits, day and overnight stays which also included weekends.

People told us they felt safe whilst using the respite service and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs and where required staff numbers were increased to ensure people’s safety.

Staff had undertaken training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They ensured people were given choices and the opportunities to make decisions.

Robust arrangements were in place for the management of people’s medicines whilst they used the service.

The provider ensured people’s nutritional needs were met by making sure they received a choice of food and drinks.

Staff received effective training, supervision and appraisal. Where specialist training was required to support people with their healthcare needs the manager sought guidance and support from other health and social care professionals.

Staff were caring, and treated people with dignity, compassion and respect. Care plans were clear and comprehensive. They were written in a way to address each person’s individual needs, detailed what was important to them, how they made decisions and how they wanted their care to be provided.

Throughout the inspection, we observed that staff cared for people in a way that took into account their diversity, values and human rights. A range of activities were provided both in the home and in the community.

There was a clear management structure at the service and people, staff and families told us that the management team were approachable, inclusive, and supportive.There was a transparent and open culture within the service and staff were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service so areas for improvement were identified and addressed.