The inspection visit took place on 19 November 2018 and was unannounced.

Unity Care is registered to provide care for three people. The service cares for people with learning disabilities and other mental health diagnoses. At the time of our inspection there were two people living at the service.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has 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 the last rating inspection in August 2016, the service was rated 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

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 kept safe and secure from risk of harm. Potential risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately by the provider. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed and were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that risk of harm was minimised.

Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. 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 were treated with kindness and compassion. People’s rights to privacy were respected by the staff that supported them and their dignity was maintained. People were encouraged to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support needs.

People’s choices and independence were respected and promoted. Staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs. People received care from staff that knew them well.

People using the service, their relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. The provider had effective auditing systems in place to monitor the effectiveness and quality of service provision. The views of people and their relatives on the quality of the service, were gathered and used to support service development.

This inspection took place on 21 June 2016 and was an unannounced comprehensive rating inspection. The location was last inspected in November 2013 and was rated as meeting all the standards.

Unity Care is a registered care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to three people with learning disabilities and other mental health diagnoses. At the time of our inspection there were two people living at the home.

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 and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately.

Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.

People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.

People had a variety of food, drinks and snacks available throughout the day. They were able to choose the meals that they preferred to eat and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to stay healthy and had access to health care professionals as required. They were treated with kindness and compassion and there was positive communication and interaction between staff and the people living at the location.

People’s right to privacy were upheld by staff that treated them with dignity and respect. People’s choices and independence was respected and promoted and staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs.

People received care from staff that knew them well and benefitted from opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed.

The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided, to ensure that people were benefitting from a service that was continually developing.

Two people were using the service at the time of the inspection. To complete this inspection we spoke to both people using the service, three staff including management and two relatives. We looked at both sets of care records and other documents required for the running of the home.

People experienced care that met their care and welfare needs. The provider delivered care that was responsive to people’s current needs. One relative told us: “I think they are good for him.” The provider ensured that people took part in meaningful activities to ensure their social needs were met. One person told us: “This is a house where you can do lots of things.”

The provider monitored people and where health needs were identified they liaised with external healthcare professionals appropriately. The service shared information with other providers to help with assessments and treatment plans. This meant that the provider cooperated with other providers in the best interest of people using the service.

People received care in premises which met their needs. The premises were well maintained and suitable for the people using them. It provided privacy and had been personalised by the people using the service.

People experienced care from a staff group that were supported to access additional skills and qualifications. Staff received regular formal support from the management of the care home. This meant that people received care from staff that were equipped to meet their needs.

People, relatives and staff were able to give their opinion about the service to the provider. The provider undertook monitoring and assessing to ensure that the service met the needs of the people. People and relatives could make comments and complaints and be satisfied they would be handled appropriately.

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

We spoke to two staff and the manager and looked at four staff files. We looked at two sets of the care records for people living within the service. At the location we spoke to two people.

We consulted with 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,”My relative is at the best place, the staff are really supportive”.

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 opportunities to be involved in meaningful activities. They received a nutritious and varied diet, which was of their 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.