Westmeade is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three people who live with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. There were three people living in the home at the time of our inspection .

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People’s relatives told us that they were confident that people were safe living at Westmeade.

Risks to people were appropriately assessed, planned for and managed. There were sufficient competent and experienced staff to provide people with appropriate support when they needed it.

People told us that they were involved with their care and consent was sought when providing care.

People received care from staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives were also positive about the care and support provided.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines in a way they could manage.

People were supported to have 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 maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary.

Regular feedback was sought from people, their relatives and other professionals linked to the home.

There is no registered manager at Westmeade. Since the manager left a registered manager of a local home within the group was acting manager whilst the provider decided on future management arrangements of the home. There was a positive caring culture within the home however there is a need to show how this is developing and being more proactive in line with current trends and practises for people living with learning disabilities.

This inspection took place on 1 December 2014 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by an inspector.

Westmeade is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 3 people who live with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection 3 people lived at the home and the home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

At our last inspection on 2 November 2013, the service was meeting the required standards.

People were safe as staff knew how to manage their care needs so that risks were managed in a way which ensured people had as much freedom as possible. Staffing levels meant people’s individual needs were met and they received the support they needed to follow their chosen routines and go out into the community.

People were protected from abuse and felt safe at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and reporting procedures. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed and people were involved in the selection of new staff.

There were suitable arrangements for the safe storage, management and disposal of medicines. We found that, where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions, consent had been obtained in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the MCA 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of our inspection the manger was making applications to the local authority for people who live at the home in line with the requirements of the law.

Staff had developed good relationships with people and were kind and caring. They encouraged and promoted positive behaviour in the way they praised and encouraged people. People were given choices and their privacy and dignity was respected.

People had access to healthcare professionals such as GP’s and mental health specialists when needed. They were given appropriate levels of support to maintain a healthy balanced diet and were looked after by staff who had the skills necessary to provide safe and effective care. People and their relatives were positive about the care and support provided.

Leadership of the home was good. There was an open culture which encouraged all involved in the home to voice their views and concerns. However there was a need to have greater evidence of systems in place to monitor the performance of the home.

On the day of inspection all three people were in residence at the home and we spoke with all of them. Two people told us, "I like living here," and one person added, "It's much better than my last home." Two people said, "The staff are very nice."

People told us about what they did during the day and showed us activities that they were involved in. We saw that support plans and risk assessments were informative and up to date. Staff were aware of their contents, which enabled them to deliver appropriate and safe care.

Before people received any care or treatment they had been asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Staff recruitment and induction systems were robust and staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's care and support needs. The accommodation was appropriately designed, personalised and suitable to meet the needs of the people living there.

We observed that people were respected as individuals. This was evident in the choices people had made regarding their clothing, personal effects, choice of activities and decoration of their rooms, which complemented their personalities. One person liked to use a karaoke machine and had one in their room. People's swimming and athletic skills were reflected in the medals and trophies on display. People told us about the various clubs and groups they attended. This information told us that people's independence and community involvement had been promoted and their individuality was respected.

As all three people who used the service have lived at Westmeade over a number of years there had been no changes to the admissions procedures since the previous inspection of this service. All referrals came via social services and all applicants received an assessment of their personal care and individual needs. This assessment formed the basis of the care plan developed at the home with the person using the service and their family members or advocates. This ensured that each person's assessed personal and social care needs were met according to individual preferences. We noted that annual reviews of people's needs, involving families and commissioning authorities, had taken place. This ensured that people's support plans remained relevant and up to date.