We inspected Villeneuve House on the 19 November 2018.

Villeneuve House is a residential care home for up to six people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection six people were using the service. The service was provided in a converted house in a residential area with easy access to the local community and had a large garden. 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.

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.

The service 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 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.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy

The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were supported to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment was well maintained and suitable for the needs of people.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.

The inspection took place on 7 March 2016 and was unannounced.

Villeneuve is a small care home providing intensive support for up to six people who have a learning disability or who are autistic and have complex support needs. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were six people using the service.

A registered manager was in post 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.

Staff supported people to keep safe. Risks were well assessed and steps were taken to minimise potential risks. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s care needs and keep them safe. There were systems in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely. There were effective processes in place for when people chose not to take their medication. The provider had a robust recruitment process in place to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.

Staff were focussed on making decisions in people’s best interest, involving family and outside professionals as appropriate. Staff worked with people to keep any restrictions to a minimum.

People made choices when deciding what to eat and drink and were supported by staff to achieve a balanced diet and make healthy choices. Staff supported people to maintain good health and wellbeing with input from relevant health care professionals.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect by staff who knew them well. There were opportunities for people to be involved in making choices about their support. Staff worked closely with the providers’ clinical team to develop personalised plans to help people when they were distressed or did not want to receive support. Staff supported people to enjoy their lives and develop their interests. The provider had an effective complaints procedure and felt able to raise concerns.

There was an open, supportive culture at the service. Staff worked well as a team and the manager demonstrated good leadership skills. The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service and take the views and concerns of people and their relatives into account to make improvements to the service.

During our inspection we talked with three out of the five people who live at Villeneuve House.

During the day some people went out with staff to walk to the shops and other activities of their choice. We saw that people were supported to go out into the community and were given the opportunity to participate in activities of their choice.

We observed that people were comfortable talking with staff and staff listened when people made choices about what they wanted to do that day. Some of the people we spoke with said they made lots of their own decisions, which included activities and visits outside the home [People told us that they were supported to make their own decisions. We saw that appropriate guidance relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed in relation to people’s ability to make decisions about their lives.

Support plans provided staff with sufficient guidance on how each person preferred to be supported. Assessments of risks to people were carried out so that they were supported to maintain independence and ensure their safety. Each person’s healthcare needs were met.

Staff undertook a range of training so that they could meet the needs of those living in the home.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place that was in an easy read format for people with communication needs.

Some of the people using the service had complex needs and chose not to speak with us to tell us their experiences. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by observing how people spent their time and noting how they interacted with other people living in the home and with staff.

We identified that the home was appropriately staffed on the day of our visit with permanent members of staff who had received training related to the needs of the people they were supporting. The staff confirmed they regularly worked on the same unit, which provided people with continuity and enabled staff to develop and maintain their skills in specialist areas. All the staff we spoke with confirmed they could raise concerns with their immediate manager. Information about raising concerns and speaking out to keep people safe was displayed in various places around the building.

When we visited Villeneuve house, we found that people's independence was supported and that they were involved in both the local community and the community of the home.

People also had access to the local church and their spiritual needs were supported.

We found that people's needs were assessed and that support plans were derived from these assessments. One person told us, "I like living here.” People's support was also planned with their welfare and safety in mind and risk assessments were undertaken to protect people from harmful situations.