This inspection took place on 6 September 2016 and was announced.

The Old Rectory-Hevingham provides accommodation and support to a maximum of nine people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. It does not provide nursing care.

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.

People were safe living in the home. Risks to people were identified and well managed, this included risks associated with the environment and premises. Staff demonstrated an awareness of adult safeguarding and knew how to report concerns.

Most areas of medicine administration were managed safely. However, medicines for external application were not stored securely and there were some gaps in the administration records for these medicines. The registered manager had taken some action to address these areas.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, and staff had been recruited following safe recruitment practices. New staff received a comprehensive induction that supported them to carry out their role. Staff had the knowledge and support to meet people’s needs effectively. They received regular training and the service supported staff to embed their learning in to practice.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. Staff and the management team were knowledgeable about the MCA and DoLS and the service was following the legal requirements.

People were supported to maintain their health, this included supporting people to eat healthily and maintain a balanced diet. The service took action to ensure people received the health care they required.

Staff were committed to ensuring people living in the home had a good quality of life and were as independent as possible. People were cared for by kind and caring staff who knew them well. People felt listened to and staff encouraged people to be involved in decisions regarding their care.

People and their relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. This helped to ensure the support provided was individual and responsive to people’s needs. The support provided took in to account people’s diverse needs.

There were plenty of activities and outings on offer to people living in the home.

People and relatives told us they had positive relationships with the registered manager, which meant they felt comfortable in raising any concerns or issues.

There was a homely, open, and inclusive atmosphere within the home and a clear ethos of team working. Staff felt involved and consulted on the running of the home.

People, relatives, and staff were positive about the support and leadership of the registered manager and provider. The registered manager encouraged staff to commit to providing a good quality service. They undertook quality checks and audits to ensure this was the case.

We noted that staff provided explanations and clear guidance before providing any support to people. This and the other evidence seen demonstrated to us that people’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

People’s care and welfare needs were recorded in detail and their care plans showed that they were being met in line with their assessed needs. This meant that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We saw that people were provided with meals in a format they could manage and had access to cold and hot drinks according to their choice. This showed us that people were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities around ensuring that people were safeguarded and were confident that they would recognise and know what action to take if they observed any potential abuse. This meant that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We saw that the provider carried out six monthly quality monitoring reports. We noted that where concerns had been identified actions to address these had been taken. This showed us that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We found that the provider had processes in place for obtaining people’s consent to care and treatment. We saw that people using the service were able to specify the people they felt happy to make some of the bigger decisions in their life, as part of a decision making agreement.

We found that the service held detailed information about the people using the service, as part of their support plans. People using the service had support plans which were focused on their individual needs and that took into account the risks to the person. The level of support needed for tasks was documented to avoid the risk of people being over supported, and to promote their dignity and independence.

We found that people using the service were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment which was appropriately maintained by the staff group. Where they were able to do so, people using the service took ownership for some tasks such as tidying their rooms.

We spoke to two members of staff who were able to tell us where they would access information about a persons support needs, and were able to demonstrate a good knowledge of the people they were supporting.

We found that the service had in place a complaints policy and procedure, which the relatives of people using the service were aware of.

People told us they were happy living in the home. One told us, "I like living here." Another person told us, "I've got a lovely home."

Most people present in the home when we visited, found it difficult to speak with us. However, one person described the staff as lovely, and said they were very happy in the home. They said that staff were never rude to them and no one shouted at them. They told us they liked living there.

We could see that people were comfortable and relaxed in the presence of staff.