The Chase provides care for up to nine people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection, there were nine people using the service.

At the last inspection of 7 and 8 August 2014, the service was rated Good. We carried out this unannounced inspection of the service on 6 July 2017. At this inspection, we found that the service had maintained its ‘Good’ rating.

People remained safe at the service because staff assessed and managed the risks to each person’s welfare. Staff mitigated risks of abuse to people and their training in safeguarding adults enabled them to identity and report any concerns.

A sufficient number of suitably qualified staff were deployed at the service and provided safe care. Safe recruitment procedures ensured only suitable staff worked at the service. People received their medicines safely in line with current good practice guidelines.

Staff received adequate training and had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles effectively. Appropriate support provided through induction, regular supervisions and an annual appraisal ensured staff reflected on their performance and improved the quality of care provided.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were encouraged to make choices and involved in decisions about their day to day lives. Best interests meetings ensured people who did not have the capacity to make decisions about their care received the support they required to do so. People received care from staff who understood and applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People received sufficient food and drink and the support they required to have a healthy and balanced diet. People had access to healthcare professionals when required to maintain their health and well-being. Staff delivered people’s care as planned and were responsive to their individual needs. People using the service, their relatives where appropriate and health and social care professionals were involved in designing and reviewing care plans to ensure they were person centred.

Staff continued to treat people with respect and deliver their care with dignity and compassion. People received personalised care that met their individual needs. Staff had clear information about how people wanted their care delivered, things that mattered to them and how they wished to spend the day. People enjoyed taking part in a wide range of activities at the service and in the community. People lived in suitably designed and adapted premises.

A culture focused on people prevailed at the service. People using the service, their relatives and health and social care professionals made positive comments about the registered manager and the service. The registered manager continually improved the quality of care people received through regular monitoring and auditing of the service. People’s quality of care was in line with current practice because of the close working relationships between the service and other agencies.

People at the service had structured days and were very active. On the day of the inspection we found that people had gone out or were getting ready to go out for the day. People happily told us what they were going to do that afternoon. One person said "I'm going to get a magazine".

We looked at four care plans and they detailed very clearly what support people should receive. People were developing independence skills and we found that one person was now able to tell staff how they wanted a cup of tea by clicking the kettle switch. People who were not able to communicate were engaged in the service as staff had the relevant skills to do so, for example they used sign language.

We observed lunchtime at the service and found that the food given was a healthy portion. Two people we spoke to in the morning told us what they had eaten for breakfast which was cereal. Staff who prepared food had completed food hygiene training.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and management discussed safeguarding at all their supervision meetings with staff every month.

There were eight people living at the home at the time of our inspection. When we arrived some of them were out and some were relaxing in the lounge. There were three members of staff on duty and others arrived for the late shift as the inspection progressed. We spoke with the manager and the deputy throughout the inspection and also interviewed two members of staff individually. We spoke to all of the people who lived at the home who were present but due to their limited communication abilities it was not possible to conduct in depth interviews. We did observe people relaxing in their home, interacting with staff and going out for various activities.

All of the views expressed by the people who live at the home were positive about the service they receive, as were the staff about the provider and the training and support they had received.

We observed processes for decision-making as well as care plans, policies and procedures and risk assessments. Records were complete and up to date. We saw a complaints procedure displayed on a notice board and safeguarding and whistle-blowing policies.

People that could verbally express their views told us that The Chase was a good place to live. Other people expressed their views through their families, and through our own observations. People presented as being relaxed and at home, and we saw a good rapport between people living in the home, care staff and the manager.

The inspection took place on the 7 and 8 October 2014. The inspection was unannounced.

At our last inspection on 30 July 2013 the service was meeting their legal requirements against the regulations.

The Chase is a residential home for up to eight adults both male and female who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Care was also provided to people with hearing and visual impairments. At the time of our inspection eight people were using the service.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 service kept people safe and people told us they felt safe as did their relatives. Care staff had been trained in safeguarding and whistle blowing and these procedures and were up to date. The service was accessible by a key pad and all visitors were required to sign at arrival. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines on time.

Care staff received regular training to keep their skills up to date and commented that they were pleased they were given a lot of training. The manager had requested and received authorisation for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) for all people in the service. These had been requested promptly and in response to changes to the law. Care staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS but some of the staff we spoke to did not know people had DoLS authorisations.

People liked the care staff and the manager and said everyone was kind and caring. Relatives had commented that care staff were good but when some agency staff were used there was sometimes a language barrier and compassion was not always there.

People were treated with dignity and respect and the service provided a separate area for the only two females in the service to live with their own living room. This provided them with added privacy from the main house.

People’s needs were met and the care staff met with people regularly to discuss how their care was. People attended activities outside of the service and relatives were actively involved in facilitating some of external clubs that people attended. The manager reviewed people’s care and risk assessments every three months or sooner if required.

There were good quality assurance procedures in place so that staff knew how they were performing through supervisions and team meetings. The service sent surveys to relatives and staff to obtain feedback, which was positive towards the service. People using the service participated in meetings which also provided the service with an opportunity to gain feedback on what they could improve for people’s benefit.