We inspected the service on 20 July 2016 and the visit was announced. We gave notice of our inspection because we needed to be sure somebody would be available at the office.

Waterlees Supported Living Service provides personal care and support for people with learning disabilities in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 13 people were using the service. People’s flats and the provider’s office were located within the same building.

At the time of our inspection there was a manager in place. This person was in the process of registering to become the registered manager. It is a requirement that the service has 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.

People felt safe with the support offered. Staff could describe and understood their responsibilities to support people to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. The provider dealt with accidents and incidents appropriately however, the recording of investigations was not always thorough. Risks to people’s well-being had been assessed. For example, where people could have shown behaviour that challenged, staff had guidance available to them.

People’s equipment was regularly checked and there were plans to keep people safe during significant incidents, such as a fire.

People were satisfied with the availability of staff and we found there to be enough to support people safely during our visit. Staff had been checked for their suitability before starting work for the provider so that people were protected from those who should not work in the caring profession.

Where people required support to take their prescribed medicines, this was undertaken in a safe way by staff who had received regular guidance. Staff knew what to do should a mistake occur when handling medicines.

People were receiving support from staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge. Staff received regular training and guidance. For example, staff met regularly with a manager to discuss their working practices and to receive feedback to enable them to provide effective support to people.

People were being supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The provider had undertaken some mental capacity assessments where there were concerns about people’s ability to make specific decisions. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Act and appropriate support had been sought where they were looking to lawfully deprive a person of their liberty.

People chose their own food and drink and were supported to maintain a balanced diet. They had access to healthcare services when required to promote their well-being.

People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was being protected including staff discussing people in a professional manner. Staff knew people’s communication preferences and the provider had made information easier to read for those that required it. For example, pictures were used to aid people’s understanding of activities that people could choose to take part in. People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. For example, by looking after their own medicines. Staff knew people’s preferences and had involved people in planning their own support. Where people needed additional support, advocacy services and information were available to them.

People or their representatives had contributed to the planning and review of their support. For example, we saw that one person, at their request, was supported with a regularly reviewed plan, to undertake gardening as a hobby by having individual tasks to complete such as buying equipment. People had support plans that were person-centred

We spoke with five people who used the service and a relative of one of those people. Everyone we spoke with praised the service and spoke positively of their experience of it.

One person who used the service told us, "I like living here.I feel safe. The staff are good. They help me with my personal care and help me prepare my meals." Other people told us, "Life is good here" and "we spend our time as we want." A relative told us, "My [relative] is well looked after and happy. The staff have been here a long time so there has been a continuity of care. The staff are brilliant at keeping me informed; the staff genuinely care. We can't fault the service."

People had been involved in decisions about their care and had a say about how the service was run. Staff understood people's needs and had a clear understanding about how people wanted to be supported.

People's flats were personalised to reflect their life interests and hobbies. People had been supported to be as independent as they wanted to be and to be involved in the wider community.

The provider had effective recruitment arrangements that ensured as far as possible that only people suited to work with vulnerable people were recruited. Enough suitably experienced and skilled staff were on duty to support people with their needs. Staff were supported through effective supervision and training.

The provider operated effective procedures for monitoring the service and taking account of people's views.

We spoke with five of the nine people who used the service at the time of our inspection. All of those people invited us into their rooms. All of the people we spoke with told us that they enjoyed living in their flats and that they had enjoyed the activities the service had helped to arrange for them.

We found that the service had made improvements since our last inspection which had resulted in people having more opportunities for privacy. People who used the service told us that they had been able to participate in activities when they wanted and that no activities had been delayed or cancelled for reasons to do with the availability of staff.

New style support plans had been introduced to ensure that care and support had been more person centred than at the time of our last inspection. Staff had received refresher training in practicing dignity in care. We found that those actions had improved people's experience of the service. The service had also improved its processes for assessing and monitoring the quality of care people received.

We found that the service met the standards we inspected against.

At the time of our inspection nine people used the service. Most of those people were involved in day-time activities outside the home, but we did speak with two people and interacted with another.

One person we spoke with told us that they liked their flat and that they enjoyed domestic activities associated with living in it.. Some people reported that they felt that staff did not consistently attend to their having meaningful occupation. And we witnessed one instance when someone’s request to plan a visit out was deferred by the member of staff as they were about to go off duty. People who used the service were not always spoken to with respect. Not enough care workers were on duty to meet all of the needs of people who used the service in a timely manner.