This comprehensive inspection took place on 5 July 2018 and was unannounced.

Strafford House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service can accommodate up to six people in one house.

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. Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

At the last comprehensive inspection in September 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Strafford House’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

The service had a registered manager in post 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.

People continued to feel safe. People we spoke with all said they felt safe. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm. Staff had been safely recruited and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.

Detailed risk management plans were in place to guide staff on the action to take to mitigate the identified risks.

People continued to receive their medicines in a safe manner and received good healthcare support. People received a nutritious and balanced diet and their dietary needs and choices were met.

The service was well maintained and clean. Infection control was adhered to by staff.

People were supported to make their own decisions and choices within any restrictions that were in place.

People were encouraged to eat a healthy diet. People chose what they wanted to eat and were involved in menu plans and involved in shopping and preparation of food.

There were good systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service.

People spoke positively about the relationships they had with the staff team. The atmosphere was relaxed, calm and friendly.

People were involved in developing their care plans, which were person-centred and kept under review. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. There was a strong person centred and caring culture in the home. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual.) The vision of the service was shared by the management team and staff.

There was a varied and appropriate activity programme and people had regular access to the community.The service had an open and inclusive culture which encouraged communication and learning.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive improvement.There were policies in place that ensured people would be listened to and treated fairly if they complained about the service.

We saw that the registered provider and registered manager continued to effectively monitor and audit the quality and safety of the service and that people who used the service and their relatives were involved in the development of the home and were able to contribute ideas.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 22 and 23 September 2015 and was announced on the first day. The home was previously inspected in October 2013 and the service was meeting the regulations we looked at. The provider name changed in 2014 therefore, this is the first inspection since this change in registration.

Strafford House is a care home for people with learning disabilities. It can accommodate up to six people. All bedrooms have en-suite facilities. The service is situated in Hooton Roberts near Rotherham. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service.

The home 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. The registered manager was registered at two locations and there was a deputy manager at this service who also had management responsibilities.

People who used the service and their relatives we spoke with told us the service provided good care and support. They told us they felt safe, the staff were caring, considerate and respected their choices and decisions.

Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of this and the registered manager has assessed people to determine if an application was required.

People were involved in menu planning, shopping and meal preparation. We saw people we able to choose what they wanted to eat and there was no set times. There was plenty of choice and snacks available. People had access to drinks as they wanted them.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and spoke to people with understanding, warmth and respect.

People’s needs had been identified, and from our observations, we found people’s needs were met by staff who knew them well. Care records we saw detailed people’s needs and were regularly reviewed.

There was a robust recruitment system and all staff had completed an induction. Staff had received formal supervision and annual appraisals of their work performance. However, this was not always in line with the providers policy and therefore, some staff were overdue for supervision..

There were systems in place for monitoring quality, which were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

The registered manager was aware of how to respond to complaints. Information on how to report complaints was clearly displayed in the service. People told us they had been given information on how to raise complaints. People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about the service. Although one person raised a minor issue, which was dealt with by the registered manager promptly and appropriately.

Staff and people who used the service who we spoke with told us that all staff were approachable, the registered manager operated an ‘open door’ policy and the service was well led.