Westley Brook Close is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for people living with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. They currently provide care for 9 service users.

At the last rating inspection in February 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was 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.

People were kept safe and secure from risk of harm. Potential risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately by the provider. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed and were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that risk of harm was minimised.

Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. People’s rights to privacy were respected by the staff that supported them and their dignity was maintained. People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support needs.

People’s choices and independence were respected and promoted. Staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs. People received care from staff that knew them well.

People using the service, their relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. The provider had effective auditing systems in place to monitor the effectiveness and quality of service provision. The views of people and their relatives on the quality of the service, were gathered and used to support service development.

This inspection took place on 12 January 2016 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 8 April 2014, the provider was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

Westley Brook Close is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 12 adults who lived with a learning and/or physical disability. There are three homes located within Westley Brook Close that were providing care and support to nine people at the time of our inspection.

There was 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.

People were safe and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew what action they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm. The provider had processes and systems in place that kept people safe and protected them from the risk of harm

There were enough staff, which were safely recruited and had received appropriate training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.

People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood the circumstances when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.

People were supported to have food that they enjoyed and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to stay healthy and accessed health care professionals as required.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw that care was inclusive and people benefited from positive interactions with staff.

People’s right to privacy was promoted and people’s independence was encouraged where possible.

People received care from staff that knew them well. People benefited from opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed and what was important to them.

Staff were aware of the signs that would indicate that a person was unhappy, so that they could take appropriate actions. Information was available around the home in easy read formats for people.

The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

There were ten people living at the service when we visited, and we observed seven of them. We spoke with four people living at the service and with three members of staff about this service to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced, what they thought and how they were cared for and supported. We spent time observing people using the service, to see how they were cared for and how staff interacted with them.

We considered all of the evidence that we had gathered under the outcomes that we inspected. We used that information to answer the five key questions that we always ask;

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The detailed evidence supporting our summary please can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that care and support was carefully planned to meet service users’ needs. There were enough suitably trained staff at all times to meet those needs and support people to reach their agreed goals. Staff understood Deprivation of Liberty (DOL) standards but told us that they had never used them at the home. Measures were in place to safeguarded people from abuse and staff received regular training about safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff told us that they had received training about mental capacity to consent, and were knowledgable about the topic.

Is the service effective?

One person told us that the staff had helped them to improve their lives. We saw that a range of professionals had input into the support plans and welfare of service users. We saw that people achieved goals they had been involved in setting. New goals were agreed and detailed support plans were put in place. Two people told us they were happy living in the home. Staff met regularly to discuss how they could improve the support they provided for individuals.

Is the service caring?

We observed that when staff interacted with service users they were warm, kind and cheerful. When staff talked about people and their needs they showed that they understood people using the service and spoke fondly of them. Staff told us about the importance of getting to know people using the service and that continuity of care made people feel safe and happy. One person said, “They are good to us.”

Is the service responsive?

People using the service met with their key worker each week and discussed their goals and support. Their preferences and aspirations were taken into account in planning support. No complaints had been made but we saw that there was a policy and procedure available. A member of staff told us that, at the regular meetings, they reminded people that they could raise a complaint and used picture cards to help them understand when necessary. We saw records, and staff told us that changes had been made in response to suggestions, incidents and preferences of service users.

Is the service well led?

Neither of the Registered Managers who job-share at this service were available on the day that we visited. The lead support worker that day led the staff effectively and was able to make necessary decisions with confidence that they would be supported by the managers. They told us that both managers were approachable and dependable. The managers had regular supervision meetings with all staff. We saw that policies and procedure documents were clear, legible, up to date and easy to find. The service had a system to monitor the quality of the service they provided.

There were nine people living there on the day of our inspection. We spoke with seven people who lived there, seven members of staff and the managers. Two managers shared the responsibility for managing the home. There was no registered manager for the home.

We saw good interactions between the staff and people who lived there.

We saw and people told us that they could choose how they spent their time, what they ate and drank, their clothes and how their bedrooms were decorated. One person said, “I have been shopping with staff to buy my clothes and when needed staff have helped me to choose clothes.”

We saw that people's needs had been assessed by a range of health professionals and people's health care needs had been monitored and met.

We saw that the systems to manage people's medicines were safe and ensured that people received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.

People lived in a safe and comfortable environment. Some areas were being redecorated and refurbishment plans were in place for kitchens and bathrooms. One person said, “I like my bedroom and I have got a new bed.”

Staff were supported in their job role and received the training they needed to safely support the people who lived there.

People were asked for their views about the home and these were listened to. Audits were completed and action was taken to make improvements where needed.

There were twelve people living there when we visited. Nobody knew we would be visiting that day. We met with three of the people living there. We spoke with two members of staff, looked at the records of three people living there and sampled the provider's records.

When we inspected the home in September 2012 we found that accurate records were not kept to ensure that the people living there were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

At this inspection we looked at the improvements that had been made in relation to this. We saw that record keeping had improved and the required records were made about the care that each person had received.

We saw that people were involved in making choices about what they wanted to do and what they ate and drank. One person told us that staff supported them to buy their clothes.

Staff knew how to support people to meet their needs and when needed, referred people to other health professionals. Staff followed advice from other professionals to ensure people's health and well being.

People told us they had a choice of foods and we saw that staff encouraged people to eat a healthy and balanced diet.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from harm and felt confident that if they had to report any abuse, action would be taken to protect people.

We saw that the home was clean and was free from offensive odours. Staff knew how to prevent the spread of any infections to keep people safe.

Recruitment processes ensured that staff employed there were suitable to work with the people living there to ensure they were safe.

There were robust systems in place to make sure that any risks to people's safety and welfare could be identified and improvements could be made. People and staff told us their views would be listened to. Where concerns had been raised action had been taken to make improvements.

Some of the records we looked at were not accurate, which could have meant that people's health and welfare needs were not identified to ensure their safety and wellbeing.

Some people had limited verbal communication and were unable to voice their views about the service. Those that were able to told us :

They were happy for the arrangements for holidays this year. They showed us around their living areas happily.

Relatives we spoke told us the home was excellent and the carers were very good.

A health professional told us "There is good interaction between staff and people."