This inspection site visit took place on 20 November 2017.

Station Rd is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Station Rd accommodates six people in one adapted building and at this inspection six people were living there.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a 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 safe living at Station Road. Staff understood how to keep people safe and risks to people's safety and well-being were identified and managed. The home was calm and people's needs were met in a timely manner by sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff. The provider operated robust recruitment processes which helped to ensure that staff employed to provide care and support for people were fit to do so. People's medicines were managed safely. The staff worked in accordance with infection control policies and procedures with one suggestion of good practice made during the inspection.

Staff received regular one to one supervision from a member of the management team which made them feel supported and valued. People received support they needed to eat and drink sufficient quantities and their health needs were well catered for with appropriate referrals made to external health professionals when needed. Staff explained to people by various means what was happening and obtained their consent before they provided day-to-day care and support. The environment was appropriate to meet people’s needs.

People and their relatives complimented the staff team for being kind and caring. Staff were knowledgeable about individuals' care and support needs and preferences and people had been involved in the planning of their care as much as they were able. Relatives told us that visitors to the home were encouraged at any time of the day.

The provider had arrangements to receive feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, external stakeholders and staff members about the services provided. People’s relatives were confident to raise anything that concerned them with staff or management and were satisfied that they would be listened to.

There was an open and respectful culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern. The provider had arrangements to regularly monitor health and safety and the quality of the care and support provided for people who used the service.

We carried out an unannounced inspection on 29 October 2015. The home is registered for six people. At the time of our inspection, there were four people living at the home.

The service had a manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of possible harm. There were risk assessments in place to provide guidance to staff on how risks to people could be managed and minimised.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place to ensure that staff employed to work for the service were fit and proper for their roles and of good character. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely.

Staff had the skills and were knowledgeable about how to support people in line with their agreed care plans. Staff received regular supervision and support, and had been trained to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. There were systems in place to obtain peoples consent prior to people being assisted with care and mental capacity assessments (MCA) had been completed for two people who lacked capacity and who were being deprived of their liberty in order to keep them safe. People received care and support from a team of caring and respectful staff.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans included detailed information relating to their individual needs. Care plans were personalised and demonstrated people’s preferences, and choices. The provider had a policy and process for dealing with complaints and concerns.

There were quality monitoring processes in place which were being developed by the manager. People’s views had been sought regarding the quality of the service.

We inspected Station Road care home on the 21st October 2013 and found that they were not meeting standards required for keeping records. We asked the provider for a plan of action, to inform us how they would meet the standards.

We revisited on the 5th March 2014. We found all confidential records and files for service users and staff members were kept locked and secure in an office. We looked at three care plans that had appropriate information about the service users. We looked at staff appraisals, supervision and minutes of team meetings. Staff members were aware of the importance of confidentiality and safe storage of records. One staff member said “the care plans are easy to use and the information is up to date, we also have good hand overs from staff. Service users were unable to communicate with me; we observed good interaction and care between service users and staff.

We saw that people’s bedrooms were homely and individualised. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible. Care plans were user friendly and provided details on how people wanted to be supported. We saw evidence that relatives and advocates were involved in the care planning of people.

During our inspection we asked to see evidence of staff training such as the homes training matrix. This was not available and we were told that a copy would be forwarded to CQC. As we were not provided with a copy of the homes training matrix we were not able to establish what training staff had undertaken.

We saw evidence that the home had an appropriate recruitment process which ensured that staff were suitable for the role as support workers.

Records of all staff and residents meetings were not kept and not all records were stored in an accessible way that allowed them to be located quickly.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because some of the people using the service, some of whom had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We spoke with three people who were able to tell us about their experience of living in the care home.

One person said “I am happy living here and I am well looked after.” Another person indicated that they too were being well looked after.

We found that the provider was meeting the standards we inspected. We noted that people and their relatives had been involved in decisions about their care and support. We noted that the care plans and the risk assessments had been reviewed regularly and kept up to date, and included any changes in people’s needs. This meant that staff had been provided with up to date information about people so that they would be able to meet their needs appropriately. We also noted that there were procedures in place for reporting any allegations of abuse to the safeguarding team, and staff were aware of their responsibilities for reporting any allegations of abuse. We saw evidence that all staff had received mandatory training, and some had attended other relevant courses to support them in their work. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.

We did not contact people who use the service during this review.