The Old Rectory provides accommodation and personal care for up to 7 people.

When we inspected on 4 May 2017, there were 6 people using the service. This was an unannounced inspection.

There was a registered manager 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.

The service provided care and support to people which took account of their individual needs, preferences and wishes. We saw friendly and caring interactions between staff and people. People received care that respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

Effective systems were in place which protected people from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained to identify potential signs and knew how to report any concerns.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place, and staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work to ensure they were suitable for the role.

Risks to people were identified, monitored and reviewed regularly. Assessments guided staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the need to obtain consent when providing care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to a range of health and social care professionals when required.

People received their medicines safely and in a timely manner.

There were processes to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. The management team presented as open and transparent throughout the inspection, seeking feedback to continually improve the care provision.

We inspected The Old Rectory on 3 November 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous inspection in December 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.

The Old Rectory provides accommodation for up to seven adults with a learning disability who need support with personal care. There were seven people living in The Old Rectory when we visited.

At the time of the inspection the home had a registered manager in place. 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 who lived at the home told us that they felt safe living there. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm as much as possible. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place which helped staff to minimise risks to people’s safety.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was subject to a DoLS authorisation at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their best interests.

People’s care and support needs had been assessed and risks to their health and welfare recorded. These were reviewed regularly by staff and, if required, input from other health or social care professionals was sought. People living at the home were involved in discussions about their care and support.

Current and relevant professional guidance was followed regarding the management of medicines.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled and provided care in a safe environment. They all understood their roles and responsibilities. The staff had also completed training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had effective support, induction, supervision and training.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld. The staff were kind, attentive and compassionate.

People’s food and drink needs were managed as part of a weekly discussion between people living in the home and their key workers. This included making decisions about what to eat, where to buy the food and who would help to prepare and cook it. Options and choices were always offered where one person did not, or could not, eat the prepared meal. People living in the home were conscious of the need to eat healthily whenever possible.

Staff felt supported by the manager and assistant manager.

The provider had a quality assurance system and regularly sought the views of people living in the home, family members, staff and other health and social care providers. People knew how to make complaints and the provider responded to complaints appropriately. Where a complaint triggered a change in the service the manager shared learning with people living in the home, the staff and with the senior management team.

We inspected The Old Rectory on 3 November 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous inspection in December 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.

The Old Rectory provides accommodation for up to seven adults with a learning disability who need support with personal care. There were seven people living in The Old Rectory when we visited.

At the time of the inspection the home had a registered manager in place. 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 who lived at the home told us that they felt safe living there. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm as much as possible. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place which helped staff to minimise risks to people’s safety.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was subject to a DoLS authorisation at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their best interests.

People’s care and support needs had been assessed and risks to their health and welfare recorded. These were reviewed regularly by staff and, if required, input from other health or social care professionals was sought. People living at the home were involved in discussions about their care and support.

Current and relevant professional guidance was followed regarding the management of medicines.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled and provided care in a safe environment. They all understood their roles and responsibilities. The staff had also completed training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had effective support, induction, supervision and training.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld. The staff were kind, attentive and compassionate.

People’s food and drink needs were managed as part of a weekly discussion between people living in the home and their key workers. This included making decisions about what to eat, where to buy the food and who would help to prepare and cook it. Options and choices were always offered where one person did not, or could not, eat the prepared meal. People living in the home were conscious of the need to eat healthily whenever possible.

Staff felt supported by the manager and assistant manager.

The provider had a quality assurance system and regularly sought the views of people living in the home, family members, staff and other health and social care providers. People knew how to make complaints and the provider responded to complaints appropriately. Where a complaint triggered a change in the service the manager shared learning with people living in the home, the staff and with the senior management team.

How we carried out this inspection

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out on a visit on the 30 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

What people told us and what we found

We spoke with three people in the kitchen during breakfast and two individually. We were told by people that they were comfortable, happy and felt well supported. One person told us "I've have lived here a long time. I like it. I have friends here." Another person told us "I get to see my favourite football team play. I enjoy that." Everyone we spoke to was positive about living there. During our visit two people were taken to the local shop.

We looked at care and support plans, policies and procedures and spoke to several members of staff and the manager during our visit.

Everyone we spoke to indicated they were satisfied with the care and support they received.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

We spoke with five people in the kitchen while they were having a meal. We were told by people that they were comfortable, happy and felt well supported living there. One person told us: "I enjoy looking after the rabbits and chickens."

We looked at care records, policies and procedures and spoke to several members of staff and the manager during our visit to the service.

We saw people either going out with staff to the supermarket or taking part in their own activities. Everyone we spoke with told us verbally or signed to us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received such as one person's recent visit to the airport to watch the planes and helicopters. People were able to have a say in their care and knew who their key worker was and when they were meeting with them to talk about changes and plan new outings.

People told us that they liked living in the home. They were able to have a say in their care and one person told us they had their own care plan they kept on a computer memory stick. People told us they had a member of staff who helped them with things (a keyworker), knew who they were and confirmed that they met with their keyworkers to talk about the sorts of things they wanted to do.

They told us they took turns to do things like cooking and helped to keep their rooms clean and tidy.

One person told us about the holidays they had been on and another told us about a party.

Our discussions showed us that people were aware of things that were going to happen, opportunities for activities and when medical appointments were due.