The Padova is a residential care home providing care, support and accommodation for up to nine adults with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were nine people living there. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and 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 changed since our last inspection.

People told us they felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about how to keep people safe and knew when and how to report concerns.

Care plans contained risk assessments and provided staff with information on how to reduce the risks of harm to people.

Safe recruitment processes were followed and there was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Medicines were managed safely.

Incidents and accidents were reported.

There was a training plan in place which showed staff had been trained to carry out their roles. Staff had regular supervisions and appraisals.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.

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 said the staff were, “nice” and “kind.” People were relaxed around staff. There was a friendly, homely atmosphere. People's feedback was regularly sought.

Care plans were person centred. Advanced plans were very detailed.

There was a complaints procedure in place. No complaints had been received.

The registered manager was well thought of by people, relatives and staff. The provider’s vision and values were embedded in the day to running of the service. There were quality assurance processes in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on 26 May 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The service was last inspected in August 2013. There were no breaches of regulation at that time.

The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 9 people and cares for people whose main need is a learning disability.

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 was safe. Risk assessments were implemented and reflected the current level of risk to people. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment.

People were receiving effective care and support. The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where required the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff received appropriate training which was relevant to their role. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals.

The service was caring. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respect and dignity and were observed providing care which promoted this. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at the home.

The service was responsive. Care plans were person centred and provided sufficient detail to provide safe, high quality care to people. Care plans were reviewed and people were involved in the planning of their care. There was a robust complaints procedure in place and where complaints had been made, there was evidence these had been dealt with appropriately.

The service was well-led. Quality assurance checks and audits were occurring regularly and identified actions required to improve the service. Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager.

During our visit we spoke with three people living in the home, who were able to express their views. People we spoke with told us they were happy living at The Padova and were able to make choices about their daily living. We saw that staff were respectful and how they were able to communicate with people and understood how they wished to be supported.

People had access to a wide range of activities which were personalised to their needs and wishes. On the day of the visit we saw people making choices to engage in activities in the lounge, garden or to spend time on their own. During the inspection people were also taking part in a number of activities away from the home, including work opportunities. One person told us “I like living here and having a job”. Another person told us “I don’t always go to activities because I like to have a break”.

Comments from feedback received by the service from relatives and other professionals were very positive and included: “I always tell people they should visit The Padova and see how it should be done”. Another relative commented that “the care provided is excellent”.

Care plans were personalised to each individual's needs and detailed the wishes of the person and how they wanted to receive their support. Risk assessments had been completed where necessary and all care records were reviewed monthly. Staff were appropriately trained, supported and showed good knowledge of the people they cared for.

The provider had also conducted regular monitoring of the quality of the care and support which had been provided and of health and safety at the home.

During our visit we spoke with people living in the home, who were able to express their views, and spent time observing people in the communal areas. People we spoke with told us they were happy living in the home and were able to make choices about their daily living. We saw that staff interactions were respectful and were at the pace of the person they were working with.

People had access to a wide range of activities which were personalised to their needs and wishes. On the day of the visit we saw people making presents for their families for Christmas and everyone went out for the afternoon. Eight people went out for a pub lunch and the ninth person went to a job they do twice a week in a local charity shop. One person told us “I like living here we regularly go out to shows and the cinema”.

Comments from feedback received by the service from relatives and other professionals included: “As GP to many of the residents I am very pleased with the care they received – excellent as usual” and “Lovely home and the residents are looked after extremely well, they provide the highest quality of care”.

Care plans were personalised to each individual's needs and detailed the wishes of the person and how they wanted to receive their support. Risk assessments had been completed where necessary and all care records were reviewed monthly. Staff were appropriately trained and showed good knowledge of the people they cared for.