This inspection took place on 15 and 19 September 2016 and was unannounced.

Stonepit Close is a purpose built residential home registered for up to 10 young adults diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s syndrome. The accommodation consists of two houses, known as Holly House and Jan Norton House. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 10 people.

The service had a registered manager at the time of the 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.

People were safe because staff were trained and understood their personal responsibilities within the provider’s safeguarding procedure. People’s risks of avoidable harm were reduced by the service’s assessments and plans put in place to mitigate them. Staff supporting people were recruited safely as a result of the provider’s use of appropriate interview, vetting and identity checking procedures. People received their medicines safely and in line with the prescriber’s instructions. Staff demonstrated good hygiene practices and the manager audited the cleanliness of the service.

People were supported effectively by a trained, supervised and appraised team. People gave their consent to the care their received and their rights under mental capacity legislation were upheld. People’s communication needs were assessed and creatively met. People chose what they ate and were supported with healthy eating options. People had timely access to health and social care professionals and the design and layout of the service met people’s needs.

Staff were caring in their delivery of care and support to people. People were supported to nurture relationships and were encouraged to be independent. People made decisions about how their lives and their privacy were respected.

The quality of people’s lives was enhanced by the excellent way in which the service responded to people’s individual needs. People were supported to be a part of their community and to publicly celebrate their achievements. The service supported people to build their confidence and to view themselves positively. People’s diverse interests and hobbies were supported and best practice was used to manage people’s behavioural support needs which reduced considerably as a result.

Good leadership was in evidence at the service. People, relatives and staff held the management team in high regard. The registered manager ensured that frequent auditing of service quality was undertaken and actions were put in place to address areas in need of improvement. The service ensured the on-going involvement of health and social care professionals in meeting people’s needs.

We spoke to the one person who was present at the service on the day of the inspection. They told us, “I am very happy here. I make all my decisions. I have a key to the front door and my bedroom and I am able to do what I want to do”.

We found the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to give their consent.

Two people who used the service told us they were involved in their care and were able to make changes to their care. People told us they were happy with the care and support they received from the staff. One person said, “The staff does the cleaning of the service, but I clean and maintain my bedroom”.

We found people expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. They experienced effective, safe and appropriate care from staff who had been suitably selected to perform their duties. People received their medicines at the times they needed them from staff qualified and skilled to do so. Suitable precautions were in place to protect people and staff from cross infection of health care associated infections. People were aware that the information about them that was being transferred to other care providers.

We found that the provider had not acted in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to give their consent.

People said they were fully involved in all aspects of their care. They told us they kept their daily diaries up to date, writing their goal for the day with the help of their support worker. At the end of the day they spent time with their support worker discussing their goals and how they were met or not met.

People said their treatment included their total involvement in their care. They said the one to one sessions had helped them to open up and discuss their feelings. They told us they liked the support they received from their support worker, therapist, psychiatrist and manager.

People told us they were able to eat and drink adequate amounts of food and drink to meet their needs. They said they had what they liked for breakfast, sometimes a cooked breakfast and sometimes a continental breakfast. Staff told us the week’s menu was planned after the menu planning meeting where each person in both house was able to choose the main meal for one day.

One person who used the service told us there were always enough staff on duty to help them and that they had their own named carer. One person said, “The staff are polite and speak to me in a respectful way.” People told us they were very happy with the care they received at the service.

People told us staff are respectful of their privacy and dignity. People said they and their family are involved in their care. They said they made the decisions about their care with help and support of their carer.

People told us they loved their home, they did things they wanted to do and they had to obtain special permission to do some things because the manager wanted them to be safe.

People said they and their parents visited the service before they made the decision the service would be able to meet their needs. People told us they liked living in their own home with their own bedroom, with the staff for company. They said it was more natural.

People told us they would complain to the manager if they were not feeling safe. They said they felt very safe in the service and had wonderful staff which supported them.

People who used the service told us their views were sought about the service delivery and their comments were taken into consideration and acted upon. An example given was we now have a wide variety of cereal for breakfast. Staff took them out shopping and they can become involved with domestic and household chores at a time suitable to them.