The Rookery provides care and support for up to 36 people with learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection 33 people were living in the home. The home comprises several buildings. The main house is occupied by 15 people and other people live in single or multiple occupancy flats and cottages around the main house.

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 supported by staff who understood safeguarding procedures and were able to recognise the signs of potential abuse.

Risks to people had been thoroughly assessed and plans put in place to manage these risks while enabling people to live their lives without unnecessary restriction.

Robust recruitment procedures had been employed to reduce the risks of employing staff unsuitable for their role. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff received comprehensive training to enable them to meet people’s care and support requirements.

People were given support to take their medicines as prescribed. However, we identified that the medicines auditing procedure was not always effective.

People’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare if they needed it.

People were supported by staff who showed respect and cared for them as individuals whilst maintaining their dignity. People were encouraged to make their own decisions where possible and their consent was sought appropriately.

People and those important to them were involved in planning their care, how it was delivered and their independence was promoted. People’s care was delivered in the way they wished by staff who were knowledgeable about their needs.

People who used the service and staff who supported them were able to express their views on the service. People were supported to make complaints and were confident that these would be heard and acted upon. The service maintained good communication with people who used the service and their families.

The management didn’t always maintain a good overview of the service and systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service were not always effective. Staff were supported by the management and felt valued by the organisation.

On the day of this inspection there were 30 people living at The Rookery. We looked at written records, which included people's care records, staff personnel files, medication systems and quality assurance documentation. We spoke with four people who used the service and we also spoke at length with the manager, the administration manager and five members of care staff.

The service was not providing personal care to anyone in their own home at the time of this inspection.

We considered our inspection findings to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? This is a summary of what we found based on our observations during the inspection.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with four people who used the service. One person said to us, "I like living here." Another person said, "I like it here as I can go out on the farm and look after the animals." Another person was excited because they were soon to be supported to do an activity they enjoyed. We observed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were respectful and friendly and there was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the service.

Is the service responsive?

People were consulted about and involved in their own care planning and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to give consent, we found the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. Care plans and risk assessments were informative, up to date and regularly reviewed.

Staff told us that the manager and other senior staff were approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the service. The manager responded in an open, thorough and timely manner to complaints. Therefore people could be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service safe?

The accommodation was adapted to meet the needs of the people living there, was suited to caring for people with limited mobility and was properly maintained. The service was warm, clean and was personalised to the people who lived there.

People were protected by effective staff recruitment systems. The provider had systems in place that ensured the safe receipt, storage, administration and recording of medicines. There were proper process in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they received. No one raised any concerns with us. This was consistent with generally positive feedback from people reported in the provider's own annual quality assurance survey. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about individual people's care needs, and this knowledge was consistent with the care records.

Is the service well led?

Staff said that they felt well supported by the manager, there was a good team ethic and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff, that the service was continuously improving and that people were satisfied with the service they were receiving.

Many of the people living at this service were unable to fully understand the questions we asked. However, people were noted to be happy and content. They showed us their pleasure by inviting us to see their room and we noted how choices were offered in a timely manner.

Some information in people’s care plans was suitable and up to date. However the majority of the care plans were in need of updating and information improved upon. We could not be assured that the information in the care plans matched the needs of the individual people.

We found that people were safeguarded from potential abuse but that staff skills could be improved upon if they had more knowledge on the mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty safeguards.

The medication procedure at lunchtime was carried out correctly and safely. However, the home did not have accurate records for fridge temperatures for the month of October. Therefore we could not be certain that medication requiring fridge storage was kept at a safe.

We spoke with care workers, senior staff and administrators. Everyone told us they were supported and trained to do the job. Supervisions were regular and annual appraisals were completed. Training was recorded and there was a planner in place to ensure staff did not miss the training required.

The service provided by this home was reviewed, audits were carried out and action was taken to ensure the quality of the provision was meeting the individual needs of people living in the home.

We inspected The Rookery in response to concerns we received regarding the dignity and choices for people living there. We saw approximately twelve people who were having lunch in the dining room being supported by staff with their meal. One person was waiting at the side of the room because they preferred to eat their meal when the dining room was quieter. We were told that due to their disabilities that the person preferred an empty table to sit at and this had been put in place for them, although the person liked to come to the dining room early and wait.

We saw people were enjoying their lunch and some were given either a napkin or apron to protect their clothes, depending on their choice. We also saw that people were given adapted cutlery to help them remain independent with their meal.

People looked comfortable with the staff who were assisting them and the whole lunch time experience was quiet and relaxed.

During our inspection visit to The Rookery on 30 July 2012 we spoke with seven people who use the service.

We saw several people either going out with staff, taking part in their own activities, attending the day centre or enjoying their free time.

Everyone we spoke with told us verbally or signed to us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received.

We observed lunch being served in the new dining room and watched how people were treated by staff. Overall, we saw that people were given plenty of time to sit and eat their meal comfortably, being offered appropriate cutlery or being assisted by staff to eat their meal within a homely environment.

We saw how staff supported people to leave the table and escorted back to their room, lounge or where they wished to go. Some people went to sit outside.

Two people told us they enjoyed the meals they had and usually went to the new dining room for them.

One person said "I really like this new room it is so light and I can see the garden".

Three people told us they regularly went over to the day centre to take part in art sessions, do some exercise or watch a film.

The majority of people we spoke with told us they had no reason to complain about the service or support they received from staff. Two people were able to sign to us that they were well looked after.

We were greeted by two people who checked our identity before showing us a member of staff.

We spoke with several people living at The Rookery during the day and observed how staff interacted with people living there.

One person who had not lived at the service very long, who had two staff members supporting them did not wish to speak with us and this was respected.

We were introduced to the majority of people living there, several commented positively about how they enjoyed living at The Rookery, although some people had gone to the day centre to take part in the daily activities and organised crafts.

We spoke with one person specifically about their care they received while living at the Rookery. They told us that there key support worker has a chat with them regularly about the care and support they required, and planned visits and shopping at the same time.

During the period we were visiting people were busy either with staff or walking in the garden, or interacting with staff, some were attending the day centre or farm, although a small group of people preferred to stay in the lounge in the main house with staff arranging activities with them.