Whitby Drive is a residential care home for six people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home.

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

Relatives were happy with their family member’s care and support. They also said staff were kind and caring. Relatives and staff felt the home was safe and that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff knew about safeguarding and the whistle blowing procedure including how to report concerns.

The provider had effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure only suitable staff worked at the home.

Medicines were managed safely. Only trained staff administered people’s medicines and accurate records were maintained.

The provider carried regular health and safety checks and there were up to date procedures to deal with emergency situations.

Staff were well supported and received appropriate training.

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 meet their nutritional and healthcare needs.

People’s needs had been assessed and the information gathered was used to develop personalised care plans. These were kept up to date to accurately reflect people’s current needs.

People had opportunities to participate in their preferred activities, such as indoor bowling, pamper nights, massage and sensory activities.

Although relatives gave us good feedback about their family member’s care, they also knew how to raise concerns if required.

The home had an established registered manager. Relatives and staff said the registered manager was approachable.

There were opportunities for staff to provide feedback about the home and people’s care, such as one to one supervision and staff meetings.

The provider carried out a range of internal and external quality assurance checks to help ensure people received a good standard of care.

The provider had received compliments about the home from relatives and visitors.

This inspection took place on 23 October 2014 and was unannounced. We visited again on 27 October 2014 and the provider knew we would re-visit on that date.

Whitby Drive is a small home for five people with a learning disability. It is close to several community facilities.

The home has a registered manager in place. 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’s needs were assessed well and good plans were in place to detail those needs. We saw staff being effective in delivering those plans.

We saw the home had policies in relation to keeping people safe and that staff knew the signs and symptoms of abuse and understood what action to take if they suspected a person was being abused.

We examined rotas and spoke to staff and relatives about the staffing levels One relative told us “there is always someone to talk to” and the rotas showed that staffing levels were kept at good levels in relation to the needs of people who lived in the home.

We saw that medicines were stored safely in individual’s people’s rooms and that the staff were careful to administer medicines correctly.

Staff within the home had the responsibility of keeping the environment clean and infection free. We saw that there was a rota and instructions that delegated specific tasks to individuals to undertake throughout the week and that records showed that staff did those tasks as instructed. The home looked and smelled clean. Infection control checks by the local authority confirmed that infections would be kept to a minimum by the safeguards in place.

We examined the records relating to staff training and saw that staff had the necessary skills to meet people needs. One member of staff told us “ I have been very well ‘re-skilled’ to work with people living here”

Care records showed that people and their families participated in producing risk assessments and care plans, and that they signed relevant documents to show they had taken part and been listened to.

People were supported to lead healthy lifestyles. The home was careful to ensure that people’s nutritional needs were assessed to keep them safe and they sought guidance from dieticians when they were concerned about someone’s food intake. They were careful to monitor people’s weight to ensure their needs were being met.

We saw care records that showed where people could they gave permission for the treatment they received for example for the home to administer medication for them. Where people had been assessed as not having the capacity to decide such things for themselves we saw that their relatives had participated in the decision and agreed with them to allow staff within the home to meet health care needs.

People were encouraged to make choices about day to day things they did. There were clear records showing their preferences and staff continually asked people what they wanted and responded to the choices they made.

Relatives spoke highly of the care the home gave and felt that they were welcome and contributed to the day to day care being given. We observed staff as they interacted with people and saw that they were friendly and warm. We saw situations that showed staff had formed strong emotional bonds with people and their families. One relative told us, “There is a lot of love in this home and the staff are really concerned about [my relative]. They went on to say, “I feel as if [my relative] and I are part of this big family here and the staff make us feel we are very much part of the home.”

We saw that people were treated with respect and their dignity was protected when staff undertook personal care with a person, or were discussing private matters with them.

The records we examined and the observations we made confirmed that peoples individual needs are important to the home when they met people’s needs Care plans showed a great deal of individualisation, for example, the “best day” records, which showed what a person would think an ideal day for them would be and how staff would help them achieve it. We saw individual treatment in day to day interactions, for example where one person found it difficult to eat with the group, a special table had been set aside for them so they were still a part of the group but didn’t have to eat at the same table.

The home conducted surveys with people and their family’s to find out how they were doing to meet people’s needs. We saw in the care records that people where possible and their relatives were involved in day to day issues. One relative said. “If we had an issue we would raise it and we know it would get dealt with. People here really listen to you.”

Relative’s and staff confirmed that the home was well run by a manager who listened but also gave good guidance about how they should meet people’s needs. Evidence showed she monitored the service well and took prompt action when needed.

People, relative’s and staff were confident about raising any issue or concerns. Staff knew how to respond to that concern’s and took action to do so. One relative told us “[their relative] would soon let us know if [the relative] wasn’t happy,” and that “IT was clear [the relative] was very happy here”

At the time of the inspection one person who used the service was in hospital but we were able to observe the experiences of the other three people who used the service. All the interactions we observed between the staff and the people who used the service were open, respectful and courteous.

We saw that staff provided what was required by the people who used the service in a way that demonstrated their knowledge of each individual's needs. We spoke with the four staff on duty and the manager. Most of the people at Whitby Drive had learning disabilities which limited their communication and they could not tell us their views.

We were able to observe the experiences of people who used the service. For instance, we spent time with people as they had their breakfast and observed how staff supported and encouraged them. We saw staff enabled people to make their own choices and decisions. We saw staff understood each person’s different needs, for example, when they could not manage independently and so required additional support.

Staff supported people to make choices about how they spent their day and the activities they were offered. On the day of our visit the people who used the service were planning a day out and we saw how staff supported them in the choice of where they would go for lunch.

We observed people being spoken to and supported in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner. Staff included people who used the service in day to day decision-making wherever possible.

Each person had their own bedroom which was personalised. We saw the provider had made suitable adaptations to meet people’s physical needs. We observed that staff respected people’s privacy and knocked before they entered their rooms. We saw that the people who used the service related well with the staff and to other people who used the service. We saw that the staff communicated well and appropriately with people in a way that was easily understood.

The manager had carried out a survey of the relatives of people who used the service. In the survey everyone said that the care at the home was very good and one person commented, “I think the house is run to a high standard; we have no worries and are very happy and content that our relative is settled and very happy”. Another relative commented, “The staff are welcoming and informative. It gives me and my family peace of mind knowing our relative is happy and well-cared for. I personally could not ask for any more”. The questionnaire showed that the staff felt they were supported and the people who used the service felt safe.

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

We found that people who used the service had their care and welfare needs met.

We found that staff had been well supported to deliver care and treatment safely. We were able to speak with four staff on duty at the home. All of the staff told us they had been well supported by their manager.

We found that people’s views were important and listened to. We found that there was an effective complaints system in place.

Most of the people who lived at Whitby Drive had physical and learning disabilities that limited their communication and verbal skills. This meant they could not tell us their views about the service.

We spent time with people during a lunchtime meal and observed how staff supported them. We saw staff encouraged people to make their own choices and decisions. We saw staff understood each person’s different needs, for example when they could manage independently and when they might require some support.

We saw how staff supported people to make choices about how they would spend their day and the activities they were offered. We saw people had freedom of movement around their home and people could spend time in their bedrooms whenever they wanted.

During this visit we talked with a visiting relative. They told us, “I have no concerns about the care. It’s the best place she’s ever been. It makes me feel secure to know she’s getting good support.”

Each person had their own bedroom which was individually decorated to their tastes. We saw the provider had made suitable adaptations to meet people’s physical needs.

We looked at the provider’s annual satisfaction survey that relatives had completed in 2011. Relatives had commented very positively in the survey about the service. One said, “The residents are well cared for and are happy and content.”

A relative had also written, “The staff are excellent. I could not wish for better care.”

All relatives had confirmed they were always asked for their opinion, they knew how to make a complaint if necessary and the home was always “clean and tidy”.