This inspection took place on 6 December 2016 and was an unannounced comprehensive rating inspection. The location was last inspected in December 2015 and was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall.

Unity Care is a registered care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 5 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 4 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 kept safe. Staff had received training and understood the different types of abuse and knew what action they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm. Staff were able to recognise the signs of abuse and raise concerns if needed. Staff were provided with sufficient guidance on how to support people’s medical care and support needs. People’s medicines were managed and administered safely and as prescribed.

People were supported by enough staff that had been safely recruited. People and relatives felt that staff demonstrated the appropriate skills and knowledge to provide good care and support. Staff were trained and supported so that they had the knowledge and skills they required to enable them to care for people in a way that met their individual needs and preferences.

People were encouraged to make choices and were involved in the care and support they received. Staff had an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) and how to support people within their best interests. Staff were respectful of people’s diverse needs and the importance of promoting equality.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People’s independence was respected and promoted and staff responded to people’s support needs in a timely manner. People and their relatives felt they could speak with the provider about their worries or concerns and were confident that they would be listened to and have their concerns addressed.

Staff spoke positively about the provider and the supportive culture they had established at the home. The provider had quality assurance and audit systems in place to monitor the care and support people received, ensuring that the quality of service provided remained consistent and effective.

We spoke to two people who were using the service, their friends, family and representatives as well as staff to get their views about the service. We looked at care records and other records such as policies and staff files.

People who were using the service were happy with the care and treatment they received. The provider ensured that each person’s needs were identified and met appropriately. They also recognised the need to involve other providers and healthcare professionals to meet people’s needs. One person who was using the service told us: “I like the staff, they help me”.

People have opportunities to engage in activities , one person told us: “I enjoy making things”. This meant that people had meaningful activities to be involved in.

The premises were suitable for the people who were using the service. We found that people had their own rooms decorated and furnished as they wanted. This meant that the service was personalised for people living within the service. The home was maintained to a satisfactory level, although the garden was very basic. The communal areas were used by all and met people’s needs.

Recruitment of staff could not be verified against current legislation as no one had been recruited since the regulations came into force. The recruitment practice was not consistent across all of the staff, but good character had been checked for all staff.

There were opportunities for staff to discuss their work performance and training and development needs. However, staff were not up to date with necessary training. This meant that the service ran the risk of not providing care that reflected the latest research and guidance. However, the provider had recognised this and had recently purchased a training package for staff.

Complaints and comments were acted on and staff understood their role in helping to resolve them. People who were using the service, their, friends, family and representatives told us that they knew how to raise a complaint and felt comfortable to do so. Most people told us that they had not felt the need to do so in the last year

Unity Care had four people living at the location on the day of our inspection.

We spoke to three staff and looked at three staff files. We looked at two sets of the care records for people living within the service. At the location we spoke to one person and two other people who used body language to communicate with us. We also looked at two care records. One person was out for the whole time we were there.

We consulted relatives, visitors and friends to get their opinions about the quality of the services provided and how the home met the needs of the people using the service. They all expressed their satisfaction, one saying, “I am very much satisfied with the care they give my relative”.

Care and welfare needs were met and delivered by staff that were skilled and qualified to do so. There were enough staff employed to care for people’s needs.

People had a choice of a nutritious and varied diet, which was of there choosing.

People who use 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.

The provider sought the views of people, staff and relatives to inform and improve the service.