This inspection was carried out on 20 and 25 April 2018 and was unannounced. This inspection was carried out due to information of concern we received. The information suggested that people’s needs were not met in a safe manner, people and staff were not positively supported by the manager, people’s dignity was not promoted, and people were not free to leave the building. We found at this inspection no evidence to support these reported concerns.

Walkern Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodates up to four people. At the time of the inspection there were three people living there.

The service had a manager who was not registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The home has been established for ten months prior to this inspection and was working in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion, although the home did not always record how this was being done. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People were consistently supported in a safe manner by staff who knew them well. Staff were aware of the risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. Risk assessments were not always completed to support staff with keeping people safe. Staff knew how to report any risks to people’s safety and incidents were reported where people may have been at risk of harm. However, incidents were not robustly reviewed as required to mitigate the chances of the incident recurring. People received their medicines as the prescriber intended and were regularly reviewed. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. People lived in a clean, hygienic environment although not all staff had up to date infection control training. Staff completed fire safety checks regularly however not all staff had received training.

Staff were supported by the manager and received a range of training to support people’s needs. However this training was not always specific to the needs of the people staff supported. Most people were supported in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; however, this was not consistent.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service support this practice. Consent to care and treatment was clearly documented and appropriate authorisations were in place when people lacked

capacity to make decisions.

People’s nutritional needs were met and monitored. People were supported by a range of health professionals when they needed this. People lived in a suitable environment that was well maintained.

People were supported by staff in a respectful and kind manner with staff ensuring people’s dignity was maintained. People received care in a person centred way that took account of their wishes and views. People were supported to engage in a range of activities that took account of their interests, hobbies and choices. There was a complaint’s process which people knew how to use should they need to.

People and staff were positive about the management of the home. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the home. However, they had not identified the areas that required improvement that we found on inspection. People’s records were not consistently maintained as their needs change