The inspection took place on 13 December 2016. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice because they provide a domiciliary service and we wanted to make sure someone would be available.

The last inspection took place 16 September 2013 when we found no breaches of Regulation.

White Lodge Centre is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to children and young people living in Surrey. The children and young people had a range of different disabilities including autism, physical disabilities and learning disabilities. The service provides support with personal care, learning independent living skills and pursuing leisure and social activities. At the time of the service 25 children and young people were using the service. The provider was in the process of extending the service to offer support to young adults aged 18 to 25 years.

White Lodge Centre was run by a provider of the same name who was a charitable organisation. The provider ran a number of different services for children, young people and adults from the same site. These included a nursery, holiday play schemes and a short stay unit which were all registered and inspected by Ofsted, various therapy services and a resource centre for adults. The different services could use the facilities at the site, which included a sensory room, a hydrotherapy pool, outdoor and indoor play equipment and an accessible kitchen.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The parents of the young people and children using the service were happy. They felt the staff were well trained, caring, kind and knew the needs of their relative well. The provider had gained feedback from the young people and they had shown they were happy with the support they received and liked the staff.

People were safe. The staff ensured that people felt safe and protected. They assessed risks to people's well-being. Medicines were administered in a safe way by trained staff. There were procedures designed to protect people from abuse and the staff had a good understanding of these.

People were able to make choices about their care and support and these choices were respected. The parents and guardians had been involved with planning and reviewing care and had consented to this in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The staff had a good understanding of people's health and nutritional needs and worked in partnership with the families, schools and other professionals to make sure needs were well met.

The staff were well trained and supported. They were able to contribute their views about the service and ask for additional training if they needed. There were enough staff to support people and they were recruited in a way which ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable children and young people.

The young people received support and care which was extremely person centred. Care packages were developed with the young person and considered their preferences and what they wanted to achieve from the service. Their achievements were rewarded and they were helped to plan and fulfil their own goals which took account of their interests as well as changes in their lives as they grew into young adults. The provider was very responsive to identified needs planning and providing additional services where the local authority, parents or young people had made a specific request.

The registered manager was involved with the day to day care and support of the young people. They worked alongside staff and had an excellent knowledge of the people using the service and their families. They were committed to continuous improvements, encouragi

During our inspection we spoke with four members of staff as well as the manager. Following our inspection we telephoned four parents of children and young people who used the service.

Parents told us that staff asked for their consent before providing any care or support. One parent told us they had “No issues” about consent.

We saw that children’s and young people’s care needs were assessed and recorded in their support plans and that care was regularly reviewed. Parents told us that they were happy with the care their children received. Parents told us the care was “Excellent” and “Overall it is very good”.

We looked at six staff training and supervision records and noted that all staff had received up to date training. We saw that four of the six staff had received recent supervision and dates were booked for future supervision meetings.

We saw that the provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of their services. We spoke with parents who told us that they were able to give feedback. One parent told us that they completed a survey a few months ago and that White Lodge Centre “Communicates well”.

We saw that the provider had a complaints policy and that information about how to complain was available to people in a format that met their needs. We noted that complaints and concerns were recorded and dealt with appropriately.

We visited the registered office and met with the registered manager. We were told that children and young people’s care and support was provided in people’s own homes or in the community.

We looked at care records and spoke with parents and carers of children and young people who received personal care. Parents and carers told us that staff treated their children with respect and dignity. One parent said “Yes, they do, absolutely”.

We saw that care records were up to date and people told us they had been involved in planning their children’s care and that staff reviewed care plans regularly.

We saw that infection control systems were in place and staff were trained in infection control procedures. Parents and carers told us they had no concerns about cleanliness. One parent told us “Yes. Hygiene is observed. They leave everything clean and tidy”.

We looked at six staff records and saw that staff had received mandatory training and that most training was up to date. For example, infection control, fire safety and moving and handling.

We noted that not all staff had received regular supervision. We were told that bank staff did not receive appraisals however, we noted that all permanent staff had received a recent appraisal.

The registered manager told us that there were no complaints at the time of our visit. However, we were informed by a parent of a problem that had not yet been resolved and they were very dissatisfied.

We spoke with some children’s representatives who told us that they were consulted about their plan of care. They told us that they received support from regular members of staff, they provided a reliable and flexible service and the staff were respectful and polite.

People said that were very happy with the care and support provided. With comments, ‘good staff, ‘Excellent service’ and ‘the staff always carry out agreed tasks consistently’.

People told us their views are sought through questionnaires and that they were able to contact the team if and when they need help.