Wentworth Close is a care home service. 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 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 who used the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Wentworth Close provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people who have learning disabilities and some associated physical and/or sensory disabilities. There were four people using the service at the time of inspection. The building was a purpose built bungalow situated in Bexhill-On-Sea, close to local shops and public transport links. People had their own bathrooms attached to their bedrooms. There was a kitchen, lounge and dining-room for people to relax in. There was also a large garden, with seating areas and raised flower beds for growing vegetables.

This is the service's first inspection. They were previously registered under a different provider; however, the same people were living at the service.

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. During this inspection, the registered manager was on long term leave. Therefore, the service was being managed by an interim manager and interim deputy manager. They had been in post for one month prior to the inspection.

We were told during inspection that the service had been through a difficult period of losing staff. As a result, some areas, such as activities, staff support and meetings had lapsed. The new interim management team had identified a lot of areas for improvement. Some had already been addressed, whilst others, such as activities and communication tools for people, required more time to be implemented and imbedded into everyday practice. Mental capacity documentation did not reflect the views of the person or how the decision was made that they lacked capacity. Some people could not make decisions related to restrictive practices, such as locks on the main doors. They did not have mental capacity assessments specific to these. However, people were not distressed by these restrictive practices and therefore we considered the impact on them to be low.

Staff understood people and risks to their wellbeing. There were robust risk assessments for people and the environment, which informed ways to keep people as safe as possible. People received their medicines from staff who had appropriate training and their competency regularly assessed. Staff were recruited safely and had a good understanding of safeguarding processes. Although some concerns had been raised by relatives about recent staffing issues, we found there were suitable numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs effectively. They told us that the interim management team had improved the frequency of supervisions and team meetings, which they found helpful in discussing concerns. Staff felt the new induction process allowed them enough time to get to know people, their preferences and routines. Although we identified areas for improvement with documentation, people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s nutritional needs were consistently met and they were supported to access health and social care professionals t