This inspection took place on 14 and 15 February 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 4 and 5 November 2014 we found the service was meeting all the required Regulations we looked at and the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained rated Good overall.

26 Stockdove Way is a care home that provides accommodation and care for up to eight adults with a learning disability and/or a physical disability. At the time of our visit there were eight people using the service. The accommodation was laid out over two floors. Each person had their own bedroom and could access the communal facilities such as a lounge, dining room, kitchen and garden. The first floor could be accessed by a lift.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since November 2016. 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 had a good understanding of how to manage the service and kept up to date with current good practice and required regulations.

As we found at the last inspection, the service protected people from harm, neglect and abuse.

The service regularly assessed and reviewed risks to people's health, wellbeing and welfare and had procedures in place to identify and manage these risks.

The service had recruitment procedures which they followed to ensure only suitable staff were appointed to work with people who used the service.

Staffing levels at the service were sufficient to meet people's needs.

People received their medicines safely and staff were sufficiently trained to administer medicines safely.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. They received regular training and support to help them carry out their roles effectively.

The service was working within the principles of the MCA, and conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet that reflected their nutrition needs as well as cultural and religious preferences.

The service worked closely with the healthcare professionals involved with each person's treatment and care to ensure their needs were being met.

People received care that was compassionate and caring and reflected their care needs and preferences. People’s needs were assessed and the information was used to formulate individual care plans.

The service recognised the importance of family participation in the lives of people using the service. Relatives were welcome to join people at daily activities and, where appropriate, they took an active part in reviewing and planning of care for their relatives.

The service supported people in a dignified and respectful way. Staff provided personal care in a way that respected peoples’ privacy as well as their gender and cultural needs.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place. It was available in a pictorial format to make it more accessible to people using the service.

The service had systems in place for handing over information between the staff to ensure they were familiar with any changes at the service.

Staff told us they felt comfortable working at the service and felt supported by the management team.

As with the previous inspection, there were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

During our inspection we met all seven people using the service, spoke with six members of staff and three relatives. Our inspection in December 2012 had found that people’s privacy, dignity and independence was not always respected by some staff. At this inspection we found that the provider had made the necessary improvements to address this area.

We observed that staff engaged positively with people and showed respect in their interactions. Comments we received from relatives included “staff have a very good understanding of my family member’s needs” and “the staff know the best ways to communicate with people”.

Relatives told us they were involved in developing and reviewing care plans. The majority said that they were happy with the care and support that was provided. Risk assessments were not up to date and people were at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care.

The arrangements for the management of medicines were not always effective in protecting people against the risk associated with medicines.

Staff received training and support to make sure they were competent and skilled to care for people.

Effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of services provided to people were not in place.

Most of the people who use the service had complex needs which meant they could not talk with us so we observed what took place and the support that staff gave to people. We also spoke to five of the staff who were on duty at the time of our inspection.

We found the majority of staff were pleasant and courteous towards people and made different attempts to engage people in activities. However, we did identify occasions when the staff did not acknowledge people and where they did not offer them refreshments, despite the staff sitting next to them having a drink. We also identified risks to people and staff within the environment. We have made the provider aware of these.

People were not able to speak directly with us about the care they received. Therefore we spoke with relatives and received feedback from a health professional.

We also carried out a structured observation using a tool known as a Short Observational Framework For Inspection (SOFI 2). This involved observing the care people received and the interactions between people and staff.

We observed that staff interacted with people in a calm and sensitive way. Staff explained the care people were going to receive, for example, when people were going to be moved using a hoist from a chair to a wheelchair.

We saw that staff appropriately supported people with eating at the person’s pace while interacting with them.

People were given choices about the activities they took part in and the food and drinks that they wanted. Relatives also confirmed that people had choices in their everyday lives.

Staff had an understanding of people’s individual needs and capabilities and relatives told us that overall staff were friendly and that the team was stable and consistent.

Relatives said that they attended meetings held in the service where they could give their opinions about how the service was run.

This inspection took place on 4 and 5 November 2014 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 21 and 22 August 2013 we found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at. 26 Stockdove Way is a care home which provides accommodation and care for up to seven adults with a learning disability and/or a physical disability.

At the time of our visit there were seven people using the service. The accommodation is laid out over two floors. Each person had their own bedroom and can access the communal facilities such as a lounge, dining room, kitchen and garden. The first floor can be accessed by a lift.

The service did not have a registered manager. The previous registered manager had left the service in July 2014. We had been informed about this by the provider in accordance with their responsibility as set out in our regulations. 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.

Arrangements were in place to safeguard people against abuse or harm and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Relatives we spoke with told us their family member was safe whilst at the service.

People were comfortable and staff engaged with them in a professional and caring manner. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed and staff knew how to manage these to keep people safe from harm.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Recruitment was on going to fill staff vacancies. People were given their prescribed medicines and medicines were reviewed regularly to ensure their ill health was managed.

People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support to meet their needs.

Care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to support people with their health needs. People were supported to eat and drink safely.

Staff had a good understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where restrictions were in place people were assessed and decisions had been made in their best interest. Appropriate procedures were followed so that people’s human rights were upheld. People were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs would be met.

People were supported to undertake outings and activities of their choice. Relatives told us the staff were welcoming and were confident to raise any concerns they had. The management team was accessible and open. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service that people experienced. People and their relatives/advocates were involved in the service. They had participated in the recruitment of the manager. Where people were not able to make their views known their relatives and friends were consulted on their behalf.