This inspection took place on 22 March 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector and an assistant inspector undertook the inspection.

Kyros - 2 Upper Lattimore Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Kyros - 2 Upper Lattimore Road can accommodate up to a maximum of six people. On the day of our inspection, there were six people living at the service.

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 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 on-going 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.

Why the service is rated Good

People were protected from the risk of harm. Staff had received safeguarding training and there were effective safeguarding procedures in place.

Individual risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified and risk assessments were in place to help manage these effectively. Risk assessments provided staff with detailed information on how to mitigate risks where possible.

There were effective systems in place for the safe storage and management of medicine. People received their medicines safely. Regular audits were undertaken as part of the providers overall monitoring of the service.

Safe recruitment practices were followed to help ensure potential staff were of good character. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs in a timely way.

Staff received regular support which included individual supervisions and team meetings. Staff felt supported in their roles. Staff completed an induction when they commenced work at the service and had access to a range of on-going training. Staff were positive about the training they received.

Consent was obtained from people before any care or support was provided and this was recorded and kept under review. The provider and registered manager worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People interacted well with both staff and the registered manager and appeared comfortable and relaxed throughout our observations. Staff were positive about their work and had clear roles and responsibilities. People's privacy and dignity were respected.

People received care and support which was individualised. People had been involved with the development and review of their care plans.

People were aware of how to raise concerns through an effective complaints procedure. Staff were responsive to people's comments and feedback.

The registered manager operated and promoted an open and transparent culture. Staff felt their views were taken into account about how the service operated.

Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place to monitor the service and identify where improvements were required. People and stakeholders were asked to give feedback through completion of an indep

The inspection was carried out on 26 November 2015 and was unannounced. At the time of our inspection there were to six people living at the home.

The service provides personal care and accommodation for up to six people who have a learning disability. It does not provide nursing care.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs at all times including evenings and weekends. There were safe and effective recruitment procedures in place.

Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. All interactions between staff and people were caring and respectful, and staff were observed to be patient, kind and compassionate. Staff demonstrated they were comfortable in their contact with people, which was reciprocated. Staff were patient when they were assisting and talking to people and waited for people to do things at their own pace to ensure they were not taking away anyone’s independence.

People were able to eat and drink a choice of food and drink, and were able to help themselves to snacks whenever they wanted them. Staff supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff were able to support people to access activities and be part of their local community. People were able to go out alone and also had some planned activity programmes. These were designed to help people engage with their local community, for example they frequented events at the church, the library and visited amenities such as the local shopping centre and markets.

Care was personalised and people were central to everything within the home. We saw care records showed people’s needs were continually reviewed. The care plans ensured staff had guidance and information they needed to enable them to provide personalised care and support. People and their family members were involved in assessments and reviews where possible with consent from people who used the service.

The registered manager used effective systems to continually monitor the quality of the service and had ongoing plans for improving the service people received. Different aspects of the service were reviewed from a variety of sources including people who used the service, their family and or advocates. This was used to enable the provider to identify where improvements were needed and to implement the actions required.

There was also monthly external monitoring undertaken by the quality monitoring manager, actions were put in place to check that any improvements were completed in a timely way. People’s records and confidential information were stored appropriately and only people who were authorised to access them were permitted to do so.

We saw evidence that people had consented to their care and treatment, having their photograph taken, staff assisting them with their medication and their financial affairs. However, we noted that the home had not always obtained people's consent to share their information.

People we spoke with were happy with the service they had received. People told us that the home provided healthy food choices that they liked to eat. One person told us “staff are very nice”. We saw evidence that people were supported to be as independent as possible.

The home had a copy of Hertfordshire safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse policy and staff had received training in how to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse, however we noted that some staff we spoke with were not always clear on what constituted abuse.

The home had a robust recruitment process which ensured that staff were suitable to work in the home. We also saw evidence that the home had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people who lived in the home knew how they could make a compliant.

People told us they liked living at Kyros house because they were able to plant and grow their own vegetables in the garden. People also told us they kept birds in an aviary in the garden. People told us they liked going to on outings to the town centre and enjoyed all the facilities it had to offer.

The people who we spoke with during our visit to the home on 20 June 2011 told us that they had choices and made their own decisions about the things that they liked to do in the home and in the community. We observed that the staff supported them to make choices and to carry out the activities that they chose to do during our visit.