Waymead Short Term Care is a care home without nursing. 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. The service offers short term respite care to people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder in the Bracknell area. Although registered for up to 10 people, the maximum number of people usually accommodated overnight at any one time is five. Each of the people who use the service have their own individual respite care package which depends on their assessed respite needs, the way they want to use the service and the support they require. For example, some people may stay at the service one night per week, every week. Another person may stay for a weekend, once a month. At the time of our inspection there were 36 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager who was present and assisted us during this inspection. 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.

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. At this inspection we found the service remained Good and had continued to meet all the fundamental standards of quality and safety.

Why the service remained Good:

People benefitted from staff who had an in depth knowledge and understanding of the people who use the service. Care plans were highly individualised to each person. The service was responsive and proactive in recognising and adapting to people's changing needs. Staff were innovative in exploring ways to help people overcome their anxieties and lead a more fulfilling life.

People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs. People were able to continue their usual daily activities during their stay at the service. The service also provided access to the local community to enhance social activities. This meant people were able to access activities that took into account their individual interests and links with different communities.

Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and protect them from abuse. Personal and environmental risks to the safety of people, staff and visitors had been assessed and actions had been taken to minimise those risks. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure, as far as possible, that people were protected from staff being employed who were not suitable. There were sufficient numbers of staff and medicines were stored and handled correctly.

People benefitted from a staff team that was well trained and supervised. We have made a recommendation that future ongoing staff training be updated in line with the latest best practice guidelines for social care staff.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to eat and drink enough and their health and social care needs were met.

The staff team were caring and respectful and provided support in the way people preferred. People's rights to confidentiality, dignity and privacy were respected. People were enabled and encouraged to develop and maintain their independence wherever possible.

This inspection took place on 6 March 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours' notice as this is a small service and the people are often out all day. We needed to be sure someone would be in.

We last carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 12 and 13 April 2016. A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to ensuring that people and staff were safe from the risks of legionella.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Waymead Short Term Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Waymead Short Term Care is a care home without nursing. The service offers short term respite care to people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder in the Bracknell area. Although registered for up to 10 people, the maximum number of people accommodated overnight at any one time is five. Each of the people who use the service have their own individual respite care package which depends on the way they want to use the service and the support they require. For example, some people may stay at the service one night per week, every week. Another person may stay for a weekend, once a month.

The service had a registered manager who became registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 November 2015. 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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. We were assisted during the inspection by the registered manager.

The provider had taken action and ensured that the premises were safe to use for their intended purpose. Measures designed to make sure people were safe from the risks of legionella had been fully implemented.

This inspection took place on 12 and 13 April 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours' notice as this is a small service and the people are often out all day. We needed to be sure someone would be in. We last inspected the service in April 2014. At that inspection we found the service was compliant with the essential standards we inspected.

Waymead Short Term Care is a care home without nursing. The service offers short term respite care to people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder in the Bracknell area. Although registered for up to 10 people, the maximum number of people accommodated overnight at any one time is five. Each of the people who use the service have their own respite care package. The care packages differ for each individual person and depend on the way they want to use the service and the support they require. For example, some people may stay at the service one night per week, every week. Other people may stay for a weekend, once a month. The total number of people using the service throughout the year at the time of this inspection was 28.

The service had a registered manager who became registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 November 2015. 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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. On the days of our inspection the registered manager was on leave. We were assisted during the inspection by the provider's head of service for people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder and the new deputy manager.

People told us they felt safe staying at the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents, and were supported to do so.

People and their relatives told us staff were available when they needed them and staff knew how people liked things done. Staffing levels and skill mixes were planned, reviewed and implemented to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The system used took into account the specific people staying at the service at any one time.

People were protected from staff who were not suitable to work with them. We found some recruitment checks had not been fully completed for all staff and agency staff employed to work at the service. However, this was rectified by the head of service and deputy manager before the end of the inspection. A new final check system was being developed for use at the home before any new staff were employed.

People were encouraged to do things for themselves and staff helped them to be as independent as they could be. Risk assessments were person-centred, proportionate and reviewed. Staff recognised and responded to changes in risks to people who use the service. There were contingency plans in place to respond to emergencies.

People received effective personal care and support from staff who knew them well and were well trained and supervised. People received support that was individualised to their personal preferences and needs. Their needs were monitored and care plans reviewed with them and/or their main carers prior to each stay at the service.

Medicines were stored and handled correctly and safely. Meals were nutritious and varied and people told us they enjoyed the food at the service.

People's rights to make their own decisions, where possible, were protected and staff were aware of their responsibilities to ensure people's rights to make their own decisions were promoted.

People were treated with care and kindness. During our inspection the atmosphere at the service was calm and happy. People were busy going about their daily lives, with staff support where needed to assist them getting to their day time activities. People's wellbeing was protected and all interactions obs

The total number of people using the short break service throughout the year, and at the time of this inspection, was approximately 20. Although registered for up to 10 people, the maximum number of people accommodated overnight at any one time was five. On the day of our inspection the registered manager was on leave. We were assisted during the inspection by the acting manager.

The service offers short break respite care to people in the Bracknell area. Each of the people who use the service had their own respite care package. The care packages differed for each individual person and depended on the way they wanted to use the service and the support they required. For example, some people stayed at the service one night per week, every week. Another person would stay for a weekend, once a month.

On the day of our inspection there were three people who had stayed the previous night for respite care. Although we spoke with those people, what they told us did not relate to matters relating to the staffing of the service.

We found the provider had introduced a new system to ensure there were, at all times, enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

The total number of people using the short break service throughout the year, and at the time of this inspection, was 21. Although registered for up to 10 people, the maximum number of people accommodated overnight at any one time was five. On the day of our inspection the registered manager was on leave. We were assisted during the inspection by the acting manager.

The service offers short break respite care to people in the Bracknell area. Each of the 21 people who use the service had their own respite care package. The care packages differed for each individual person and depended on the way they wanted to use the service and the support they required. For example, some people stayed at the service one night per week, every week. Another person would stay for a weekend, once a month.

On the day of our visit there was just one person who had stayed the previous night. They were getting ready to go to their day centre. Due to the nature of the person's disability they were not able to tell us their views of the service. However, we spent time in the morning before they left the service, observing how they were cared for and the interactions between them and the staff. To obtain the views of people who use the service but were not present when we visited, the acting manager arranged for us to speak with the family carers of five of the people who use the service.

We found people’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration and were protected against the risks associated with medicines. Carers we spoke with felt the staff helped their relatives to remain as independent as possible. One carer commented: "If they were a hotel I would give them five stars." Another told us: "They go out of their way to find things my relative enjoys to do."

The provider had not taken appropriate steps to ensure people using the service, and staff, were safeguarded when only one member of staff was on duty. This meant that the provider could not be sure there were always sufficient numbers of staff on duty to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.

Carers we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and the respite service provided. They felt staff had the skills they needed when providing care and support to their relatives. One carer commented: I am really happy with what they do there. They are excellent." Another carer said: "I can't speak highly enough of them. Nothing is too much trouble."

The total number of people using the short break service throughout the year, and at the time of this inspection, was 19.

Waymead Short Term Care was closed from the end of July 2012 for major refurbishment work. The service re-opened on 17 January 2013 and had recommenced their short term break service two weeks before our visit.

On the day of our visit there were two people staying overnight. We spent time in the morning speaking with them before they left for their planned daytime activities.

We saw before people received any care they were asked for their consent and the staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

One person we spoke with told us they felt their needs were being met and said staff did things the way they preferred. Interactions we observed between staff and people who use the service demonstrated staff were skilled in communicating with people who were not able to always express themselves verbally.

One person we spoke with told us they felt the new building was "good" and confirmed they had helped to choose the colour schemes and some pictures for the walls.

We found the provider met the outcomes we inspected and had systems in place to monitor their own compliance.

The total number of people using the respite service throughout the year, and at the time of this review, was 29.

After each respite stay the people using the service are invited to complete a satisfaction questionnaire. We were given a copy of the correlations of the questionnaires returned to the service since January of this year. The answers given in the questionnaires have been used as part of the evidence of people's views to form the judgements within this report.

On the day of our visit there was one person staying overnight. We spent time in the morning speaking with the person before they left for their planned daytime activities. The person was not able to communicate verbally with us and was assisted by their external care worker to give us their views.

The person we spoke with told us that they felt they were involved in making decisions about their care and that they were offered choices about how things were done. They felt the staff respected their privacy and dignity and that the staff helped them to take part in activities in the local community.

In the correlation of the questionnaires returned by people this year, people had given examples of activities they had enjoyed during their stay. The activities mentioned included: going to the cinema; pub lunches; a local weekend market; going to town; playing golf and a boat trip.

The person we spoke with told us that they felt safe when staying at the service and that they would tell a staff member if they had any concerns. They felt their needs were being met and that their care was delivered in the way they preferred.

In the correlation of the questionnaires returned by people this year, people consistently responded that they were satisfied with their stay.