About the service: Church Lane is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Church lane provides a service for up to 12 adults with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were 11 people living at the service. Accommodation is provided in two connected houses and on two floors. People have access to communal areas.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ Some people who lived at the home were able to communicate verbally but for people who were unable to speak to us we observed staff supported them with a range of communication aids, which included sign language and interpreting people’s body language with regards to meeting their needs and wishes.

¿ People continued to feel safe living at the service. Risks in relation to people’s health, safety and welfare had been identified and action taken where appropriate. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of the people using the service. Medicines were safely managed. There were systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents and learn from these.

¿ Staff were competent and knew the people they supported well. People’s care, health and cultural needs were identified so staff could meet these. People had their nutritional needs met. People were supported to maintain good health. Staff made referrals to health professionals when required. Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and ensured people consented to their care.

¿ People continued to receive care from staff who were kind and caring. People’s privacy and dignity was protected and promoted. People had developed positive relationships with staff who had a good understanding of their needs and preferences. One relative said. “[name] loves living at Church Lane as it feels like their real home with staff that care and keep [name] safe and happy.”

¿ People received care that met their needs. Care plans gave details of how people would like their needs met. People took part in a range of group and one-to-one activities depending on their preferences. Information was displayed on how to make a complaint and in a pictorial format, that could be easily understood. Relatives also told us they knew how to complain.

¿ People, visitors and staff told us the service was well managed and had an open and friendly culture. Staff said the service had a family atmosphere and they felt well-supported. The current manager and staff worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people got the care and support they needed. One person said, "I think [manager] is a very nice person, I have great respect for job they are doing.”

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 9 March 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remains Good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next inspection is scheduled accordingly.

We carried out an announced inspection of 30 & 32 Church Lane on 01 February 2016, and made telephone calls to people’s relatives and health care professionals who support people who lived at the service on 04 February 2016. When we last inspected the home in June 2013 we found that the provider was meeting the legal requirements in the areas that we looked at.

30 & 32 Church Lane is a residential care home that provides accommodation and support for up to twelve people with learning disabilities, sensory impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were twelve people living at the home.

The home had 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.

The provider had effective processes in place to protect people from avoidable harm and to ensure their safety. There were risk assessments in place that gave staff guidance on how to minimise risks to people and how to safeguard them from possible harm.

Medicines were administered safely and people were supported to access the necessary healthcare services to maintain their well-being.

People had access to nutritious food and drink throughout the day and were involved in deciding what to eat and drink. Those who needed support during meal times were assisted with their meals and where people wanted to eat privately, this was supported.

People were supported to maintain their independence and encouraged to pursue hobbies that they are interested in. They were aware of the provider’s complaints system and knew who to raise complaints with if they had any.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was a sufficient number of staff to support people safely. Staff were trained to meet people’s individual needs and were supported by way of regular supervision and appraisals. They understood their job roles and responsibilities and actively asked people’s consent before providing them with care.

The home complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The staff were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People’s care needs had been assessed and personalised care plans put in place, giving the staff team guidance in how to support people in a consistent way. These care plans also detailed people’s individual preferences and choices.

The provider had a formal system for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on this to improve the quality of the service. They also had an effective quality monitoring process to ensure they were meeting the required standards of care.

Some people using the service had complex needs and therefore were not able to tell us able to tell us about their experience at the home. However, one person told us “I am fine" and " I like it here, no one hits me or shouts."

We found the provider had taken reasonable steps to involve people and/or their representatives in decision making processes about the support they provided to people. We also found that the provider had implemented new systems to ensure people's care records and support plans were reviewed regularly.

On the date of our inspection we found that the provider had taken appropriate steps to ensure that staff were aware of where to locate the updated care records of people who use the service. The provider did not have systems in place to specify how frequently people’s care records would be reviewed and updated. The provider had completed comprehensive support plans and risk assessments of people who use the service. However, there were no procedures in place or evidence to show that people and their representatives were involved in the planning of their care.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because some of the people using the service had complex needs and they were not able to tell us their experiences. However, we were able to talk with two people. One said “I have just been to the hospice and visited my mum. She is not well. We took some flowers and she was happy to see me.” The other person said “I am well looked after. I went to work in the shop. I like it here and the staff look after me."

We found the provider had systems in place to ensure people were safely administered their prescribed medication. Staff felt they were sufficiently supported to perform their roles. There were systems in place to ensure that the best interest of people who could not consent was appropriately decided. The care plans had not been reviewed regularly and not kept up-to-date.

During our site visit, we met some of the people using the service. They were relaxed and content. Some were able to communicate verbally and they gave positive comments about the care and service provided. A person said that they “enjoy staying here” The same person smiled as they pointed to the staff present and gave a thumbs-up sign and said, “Happy with staff.” The same person also said that they “help staff with own laundry.” Another person said “Fine” when asked about the care staff and the care provided.

When asked about the menu and choices, a person said that they “love curry dishes” and that “staff cook curry” for them.

During this review, we spoke to a relative who commented, “I am pleased with the service. The staff are very caring; they always keep me informed. The manager writes to me or phones me.” The same relative added, “I attended a yearly review last year. Yes, I am very satisfied with the service. ”