This inspection took place on 9 November 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in December 2015 the service was in breach of regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2014. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements in how they ensured there were enough staff with the suitable skills and knowledge required to support the people who used the service. We found that the provider had taken effective action to address our concerns.

Summerfield House provides personal care for up to five young people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting five people who lived at the home.

There had been no registered manager working at the service since December 2015 however a new manager was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. This person was not present during our inspection but we spoke with them on the telephone. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated

People told us and indicated that they felt safe. We saw they were happy to approach staff for support and reassurance. Staff were aware of the need to keep people safe from harm and they knew how to report allegations or suspicions of poor practice. The manager had assessed any risks associated with people’s conditions and staff knew what to do to reduce these risks.

People were supported to take their medicines appropriately. Staff could access medication which was suitably stored and knew how to dispense it safely. There were regular checks to make sure this was done properly.

People were supported by staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge they needed to meet their care needs.

People were supported by staff who knew their preferences and what they liked to do. Staff supported people to choose food and drinks they liked and ensure they received the appropriate nutrition to stay well.

People were supported to have their mental and physical healthcare needs met. The manager sought and took advice from relevant health professionals when needed.

People said staff were caring and we saw that people enjoyed the company of the staff who supported them. People were involved in deciding how they wanted their care to be delivered and their choices and wishes were respected. Staff respected and promoted people’s privacy.

Staff supported people in a range of activities to promote their independence and involvement in the local community.

People had access to a complaints system and the manager responded appropriately to concerns.

There was effective leadership from the manager and senior members of staff to ensure that staff in all roles were well motivated and enthusiastic. The provider understood their responsibilities to the commission but their actions to ensure they acted in a timely manner were not always robust.

Systems in place to monitor the quality of the service had improved and when necessary action plans were established to implement and monitor improvements to the service.

This inspection took place on 2 December 2015 and was unannounced. The service was compliant with all the regulations we reviewed at our last inspection in July 2013.

Summerfield House is a residential care home registered with the Commission to provide personal care for up to five people with autistic spectrum disorder and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service. There was a registered manager at this location. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe by staff who were confident to whistle blow if they felt someone was at risk of harm. People were able to express if they felt unsafe and staff constantly asked people if they required support and provided reassurance when necessary.

People had their needs and requests responded to promptly. All the people and staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff to support people in line with their care plans. .

Medication was managed safely. The registered manager conducted regular audits and we saw that any errors had been dealt with appropriately.

People were supported by staff who had received regular training and supervisions to maintain their skills and knowledge. Staff could explain the actions they would take if people suddenly became unwell. There were no processes to ensure temporary staff used to cover vacancies at the service had the skills and knowledge required to meet people’s care needs.

People’s rights to receive care in line with their wishes were upheld as they were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). When people were thought to lack mental capacity the provider had taken the appropriate action to ensure their care did not restrict their movement and rights.

There was a wide choice of food available and people could choose what they wanted to eat. People were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them well.

People had developed caring relationships with the staff who supported them and staff were keen to undertake tasks they knew made people happy. People were supported by staff to take part in tasks around the home to promote their independence and keep their environment how they wanted.

Staff felt that concerns would be sorted out quickly without the need to resort to the formal complaints process. However we saw that staff concerns were not always been resolved promptly which had affected morale at the service.

The service encouraged people to comment on how the service operated and to be involved in directing how their care was provided and developed.

The service had a clear leadership structure which staff understood. Due to staff vacancies and sickness, key worker roles had not been fully developed. Staff told us and records showed that they had regular supervisions to identify how they could best improve the care people received.

There were processes for monitoring and improving the quality of the care people received. The provider conducted regular audits and we saw that action plans had been put in place when it was identified improvements were needed.

When we visited we found that the home provided care for four young people with a range of needs and supported them to attend school or college. We also spoke to the people who used the service, five care staff and the new manager. We looked at care records and policies to help us understand people’s experiences and we also spoke to a relative of a person who used the service.

All the people we spoke to told us that the workers caring for them had a good manner, respected their dignity and spoke to them as adults. One person who used the service told us, "The staff are really good. I like it here".

People who used the service were involved in planning their care. They were supported to make choices about the care they received. Where decisions were made on a person’s behalf they were done so with their agreement and in their best interest.

Staff felt supported to meet the care and welfare needs of the people who used the service. One member of staff told us, “I like working here, the manager doesn’t cut corners”.

The provider was able to protect people against the risk of unsafe care and treatment by regularly assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided and introducing changes when required.

We noted that the registered manager no longer worked at the location and that they had formally applied for their registration to be cancelled.