About the service: Sunny Mount is a home for people with learning disabilities and/or autism; The home is registered for four people and there were four people living there at the time of the inspection.

The service was a small home. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people. People living at the home were also encouraged to develop friendships with the neighbours who they knew well.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not gone down since our last inspection.

A registered manager was in post. 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’s experience of using this service.

•People felt safe and were protected from avoidable harm by staff who understood how to keep them safe.

• Staff knew about the risks associated with people’s care and understood how to keep minimise risks to them.

• Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and understood how to prevent the spread of infection.

• People received care from a consistent team of staff understood their needs well.

• People’s needs were assessed to ensure they could be met by the service.

• Staff were recruited safely, and there were enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

• Staff received on-going support and training to be effective in their roles.

• People made their own decisions about their care and were supported by staff who understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

• Where required, people were supported with their nutritional needs and to maintain their health and well-being.

• Staff respected people’s rights to privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

• People received information about the service in a way they could understand.

• People were involved in planning and agreeing their care.

• Care plans contained the information and guidance staff needed to support people.

• Systems were in place to manage and respond to any complaints or concerns raised.

• The provider had systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service and implementing improvement where required.

At this inspection we found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas.

Rating at last inspection: At our last comprehensive inspection of this service in April 2016, we rated the service as 'Good'.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the date and the rating of the previous inspection.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

This inspection took place on 11 March 2016 and was an announced inspection. This was because the location is a small care home for younger adults who are often out of the home during the daytime and we needed to be sure that people would be available to talk to us.

Sunnymount - 127 Longdon Road provides care and accommodation for up to four people with a diagnosis of a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The communal areas of the home were on the ground floor, together with one bedroom. The rest of the bedrooms were on the first floor. Four people lived in the home at the time of our visit.

The home had a registered manager 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. The manager was supported by a care manager who was responsible for the daily running of the home.

The home had a friendly and ‘homely’ atmosphere and staff told us that they enjoyed working there. We saw staff were responsive to people's needs and had good knowledge of how people preferred their support to be provided.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and well cared for at the home. There were enough suitably trained staff to keep people safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood their responsibility to report any observed or suspected abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about the risks associated with people’s care and support. Risk assessments and management plans were in place to manage the identified risks. Medicines were managed safely so people received their medication as prescribed.

People had the capacity to make all day to day decisions for themselves. The registered manager and the care manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were supported in a way that did not restrict their freedom.

Staff were kind and considerate to people. They respected and understood people's need for privacy and promoted their independence. People were involved in planning their daily activities and chose to pursue a variety of hobbies and interests at home and in their local community.

People chose what they would like to eat and drink and their nutritional needs were met. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and staff knew when to refer to other health professionals.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. A system was in place to manage complaints received about the service.

People were positive about the management team and the running of the service. Staff were encouraged to continue to develop their skills in health and social care. They told us they felt supported by the managers to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff, people, their relatives and staff were asked their opinions about the home and there were processes to monitor the quality of care provided.

We visited 127 Longdon Road on 4 February 2014. During our visit, we spoke with the senior care officer and a support worker. We observed interactions and spoke with two people who lived there. The other people who lived at 127 Longdon Road were at day services. After our visit, we spoke by phone with relatives of two people who lived there. At the time of our visit four people lived at 127 Longdon Road.

People who lived at 127 Longdon Road were unable to express their views about the care they received. We saw they interacted positively with staff and appeared very comfortable and relaxed. At the time of our visit, one person was playing a game console game with a staff member and another person was getting ready to go out for a doctor’s appointment. People were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions. The home was clean, tidy and well maintained.

Relatives told us: “They provide excellent care.” And: “They do so much with X. More than I ever could at home.” Staff said: “The atmosphere here is wonderful.”

Staff told us staff cover was good and they planned a wide range of activities for people. We saw these had recently included a trip to the pantomime and football matches.

We visited the home without letting anyone know in advance. Two people who lived at the home were in. One person arrived home later from attending a day service. The fourth person who lived at the home was away visiting their family. There was one member of staff on duty. Another member of staff arrived later to go with one of the people who lived at the home to a football match.

After the inspection, we spoke with relatives of two people who lived at the home. They were generally very happy with the care and support provided by the home. “Well run” and “definitely happy” were two of the comments we had from relatives.

People were relaxed and comfortable in the house. They had lived there for many years. Staff told us that they had worked at the home for many years and knew the people who lived there well.

One person who lived there welcomed us and told us about their interests and their favourite football team. They told us the home was a good place to live and that they were happy to live there. One person told us it was “a good home”. Another gave it “top marks” and signalled with a smile and thumbs up.

When we visited the service on 27 January 2012 four people were living at the home. We met and spoke to one person before they went out for the morning supported by a worker. We saw that they were relaxed and comfortable in their home and related well to care workers that supported them. They looked well groomed and were interested in our visit and told us where they were going for lunch. They moved freely around the home including the kitchen. They showed us their bedroom. It was comfortably furnished and decorated with personal effects and entertainment. They shared a bathroom with two other people on the first floor.

Their records were well organised and up to date. We saw needs assessments and plans of care that were individual to the person and regularly reviewed. These included personal and health care and leisure. There were risk assessments and risk management plans. These records were signed by the person. Workers that we spoke to knew them well and understood their care plans. A disabling health condition had been improved over a number of years and this had increased their confidence and independence.

They were supported by workers and managers who understood the challenge of balancing people's safety with their rights and choices. Their personal finances were managed by the home and there were systems and records for this.

Workers have appropriate qualifications to support them. Some updated training has been undertaken but there is no clear strategy for keeping workers up to date. We have asked the provider organisation to improve this.