This inspection was carried out on 25 and 26 July 2017. The inspection was unannounced on the first day of inspection. We told the registered manager when we would return for the second day.

The Shrubbery is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 15 people. There were nine people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

The Shrubbery supported people who had previously committed offences. Some people had lived at the service for up to three years although many people had lived at the service for less than one year. People had varying care and support needs. Some required more support than others but most people were quite independent and required only prompts and encouragement. Although most people were capable of going out alone, some people had restrictions in place that meant they could only go out when escorted by a member of staff.

The service was provided in a large renovated property with private gardens at the back. Each person had their own bedroom with en-suite shower and shared two communal lounges and a dining room. Close to shops and community facilities, including public transport, people could get to places they needed easily.

There was a registered manager based 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.

Our last inspection report of this service was published on 08 July 2016 and related to an inspection that had taken place on 01 and 02 March 2016. At the inspection in March 2016, we found two breaches; one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Regulation 11, Need for consent and one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, Regulation 18, Notification of other incidents. People were restricted from entering or leaving the premises freely as the door was locked and only staff had a key fob. The provider and registered manager had failed to notify CQC of important events at the service that they are required to notify by law.

We asked the provider to take action to meet the regulations. The provider sent us a report of the actions they were taking to comply with Regulations 11 and 18 on 19 July 2016. They told us they had already taken the action specified in the plan and were meeting the regulations.

At this inspection, we found that the provider had implemented new ways of working to address the breaches from the previous inspection which had resulted in improvements to the service provided. All people living at the service had been issued with their own key fob so they had full and free access in and out of the premises. Monitoring systems had been reviewed, ensuring one member of staff took responsibility for completing notifications to CQC. This change had resulted in improvements and notifications being made when necessary.

Although no people living at the service had been assessed as lacking capacity to make any of their own decisions, the registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how they may be required to support people to make decisions in the future. People who did not require a staff escort when leaving the premises now had their own key fob so they could freely enter and leave when they wished.

The management of risk was robust with systems in place to assess the risk to individuals and by individuals. People were involved in their risk assessments as well as outside agencies when relevant. People had a comprehensive assessment before moving into The Shrubbery which resulted in the development of a care plan. People were involved in the planning of their support. A risk meeting was held regularly with the registered mana

The Shrubbery is a home run by a Christian charity working with people who are at risk of offending, or have offended. The home’s aim is to provide assistance and support for people so that they can lead crime-free lives. The home provides support on a 24 hour basis and is planned to assist people to increase their daily living skills so they can move on to independent accommodation. They offer support for up to 15 people.

The accommodation was set in a detached property over three floors as well as a separate annex and an independent flat. At the time of our visit, there were five people who lived in the home.

The home had a registered manager. 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 home was safe. Risk assessments were in place for every person living in the home and covered a wide range of potential risks. The assessments were very thorough, identifying risk and how to mitigate it. They were constantly being reviewed and updated. Some people were not allowed to leave the building without a daily risk assessment being completed.

Environmental risk assessments were in place and safety certificates for gas and electricity were up to date. There were fire evacuation procedures in place although people did not have personal evacuation plans. Staff were able to describe how they would support people to evacuate in an the event of an emergency.

The provider had a safeguarding policy and procedure in place and staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. This policy made reference to the local authority’s safeguarding protocols but there was not a copy of this protocol in the home. Despite this staff were able to confidently tell us what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe. We have made a recommendation about this.

Accidents and incidents had been responded to appropriately and the registered manager had put in place procedures following one specific incident that ensured protection for people living in the home.

Staff rotas showed that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs and in line with the providers staffing policy.

The provider had a recruitment policy in place and records showed that recruitment practices were safe. References had been gathered, Disclosure and Barring checks (DBS) had been completed and gaps in employment history had been explored before staff commenced working.

The provider had a medicines policy in place which the staff were following. Medicines were stored correctly and medication administration records (MARs) were completed correctly. Medicine audits were carried out on a daily and weekly basis.

The home were not providing care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) or taking into account Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People that had no legal restrictions in place were not able to leave the home unless staff allowed them to. The registered provider and manager had not considered that these people would need a DoLS in place. Staff and the registered manager did not have a clear understanding of how the Mental Capacity Act and the need to consider people’s consent to care and treatment fed into the support they provided.

The provider had a training schedule in place for the whole of 2016. The registered manager did not have a training matrix in place and had no overall view of what training might be out of date. We were provided with additional information after the inspection but it was still not clear whether all training was up to date. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff completed residential inductions to the trust, received regular supervision and annual appraisals. They were support

The Shrubbery was operated by the Langley House Trust and provided support to people who had offended or were at risk of offending. We looked at how people were supported.

We saw that people were supported and encouraged to lead independent lives within individual agreed boundaries and constraints. People were offered choices and were able to contribute to their agreed support plans.

Support plans and risk assessments were comprehensive and were subject to regular review and discussion. This gave people the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

All the interactions we saw between staff, management and people who lived in the home were positive. We saw that people felt free to express their opinions and were listened to and provided with all the support they needed.

The recruitment procedures at the service were sufficiently robust to ensure the safety and wellbeing of people living there.

Staff received training and support appropriate to the needs of the people who lived in the home.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.