This inspection was carried out on the 27 October 2017 and was unannounced. Whitmore Vale House is a residential home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 people who are living with a learning disability or have a mental health diagnosis. Some people had a physical disability. There is a day centre on site that people can attend during the week. At the time of our inspection 16 people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post and present on the day of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

There were times where staff were not deployed in a way that suited people’s needs. This was because of additional duties that staff undertook for example cleaning and cooking. We have made a recommendation around this. There were activities in the service that people could participate in on a daily basis. Work was being undertaken to improve the external activities.

People said that they felt safe. Staff ensured that people were protected against the risk of abuse and told us that they would not hesitate in reporting any concerns. Robust recruitment of staff took place before they started work. There were appropriate numbers of staff available.

Detailed risk assessments took place in relation to people’s individual needs. The environment was checked in relation to potential risks to people. In the event of an emergency there were plans in place to protect people.

Accidents and incidents were acted upon and steps taken to reduce the risks. These were analysed by the registered manager regularly and any learning discussed with staff.

People’s medicines were managed safely and appropriately by staff. People had access to pain relief when they needed. People’s nutritional and hydration were managed to ensure they received the most appropriate care.

People told us that they enjoyed the food at the service. People were supported and encouraged to eat healthily and had access to nutritious food. Health care professionals were involved with the care of people and people were supported to attend health care appointments.

Training and supervision were provided to staff that ensured that the most appropriate care was being provided to people. We saw through observations that staff were knowledgeable and effective in the care that they provided.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is a legal framework about how decisions should be taken where people may lack capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and how they needed to put it into practice and staff were knowledgeable in this. People at the service had the capacity to make decisions about their care. There were no people at the service that were being restricted in any way.

Staff showed care and empathy towards people. It was clear that staff had good relationships with people and understood what was important to them. Staff showed patience, dignity and respect and people responded well to staff. Families and visitors were welcomed to the service.

People received individualised care and were able to make choices around how they wanted their room to look and how they wanted their care to be delivered. People were supported to be independent and to make their own choices.

Care plans were detailed and specific to each person. There was guidance for staff on how best to provide the support. Staff were aware of what care needed to be provided. People were set goals to achieve and work was undertaken to ensure that these goals were met.

People were supported to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints were investigated and improvements made wher

The inspection of Whitmore Vale House took place on 6 October 2015 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out on 15 July 2013 and found that the provider had met the standards required.

Whitmore Vale House is a residential home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 people, who are living with a learning disability and have complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living there. The premises consisted of three separate units, each unit had a communal lounge, dining room, kitchen and bathroom facilities which people used. The home had a spacious and secure garden for people to use and a day centre on site for people to attend.

At the time of our visit, Whitmore Vale House had 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 told us they felt safe at Whitmore Vale House. Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People were supported by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work. Staff worked within guidelines to ensure people’s care and support promoted well-being and independence.

People received their medicines when they needed them and the administration and storage of them were managed safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Information about the home was given to people and consent was obtained prior to any care given. Where people had restrictions placed on them these were done in their best interests using appropriate safeguards.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and were involved in the regular monitoring of their health. The home worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for treatment.

Staff involved people in their own care and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. Relatives and friends were able to visit. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted for example when personal care tasks were performed.

The home was organised to meet people’s changing needs. People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis to reflect changings in their needs. People who wanted to move into the home would come on a trial period, so they could choose whether the home met their needs.

People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the home and there were different ways for their voices to be heard. Suggestions, concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the home.

People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation because staff made sure people were able to participate in activities of their choosing. We found there were a range of activities available within the home and community.

The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people’s involvement in the improvement of the home.

People’s care and welfare was monitored regularly to ensure their needs were met within a safe environment. The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Management liaised with, obtained guidance and best practice techniques from external agencies and professional bodies.

People told us the staff were friendly and management were always approachable. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the home. Staff told us they would report any concerns to their manager. Staff felt that management were very supportive.

We spoke with five people who used the service. They were very happy with the care they received. They told us “The service is good” and “I am happy here.”

We found that people had been involved in planning their care and that they had given their consent to the care they received. There were processes in place if people lacked the capacity to make a specific decision and staff had received relevant training.

People’s care plans, risk assessments and other records had been reviewed with people to ensure that they contained up to date information. People had received care that met their individual needs.

There were processes in place to ensure that people were safeguarded against the risk of abuse.

Staff had received an induction and appropriate training was provided for them.

There was a complaints system that had been brought to people’s attention.

We spoke with four people who used the service and three staff.

People told us “it’s lovely living here” and “staff are nice and friendly”. They told us staff understood the help they needed and they had the freedom to go out when they wanted.

People had not been asked to give their written consent to the care provided. The staff we spoke with demonstrated they understood when verbal and written consent was required. We found although best interest decisions had been recorded the provider’s documentation had not been used. This documentation would have provided clear evidence of how decisions had been reached.

Staff understood people’s care needs and ensured information was shared between staff. We found staff promoted people’s independence. People told us “staff let me get on with everything I can”.

We saw the care plans had been written some time ago and they had not all been reviewed regularly to ensure they provided up to date information with regard to people’s care needs. The registered manager was aware of this issue and had taken measures to start to review people's care plans.

We found there were processes in place to ensure medicines were administered safely.

Staff had undergone appropriate checks prior to them starting work.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

On this occasion we did not speak to people using the service.

People said staff always respected their wishes and encouraged and enabled them to be as independent as they could be. They felt empowered to make choices and informed decisions in their daily lives and the running of their home. They enjoyed a wide range of holidays and activities of their choice. They had been consulted about significant matters affecting them. This included the temporary operation of their day service to one of their living units.People living in that unit raised no concerns about the impact of the day service on their privacy or daily routines. They told us they appreciated having their own rooms and that staff respected their privacy and dignity. They told us that staff were friendly and always available when needed. They said staff supported them to maintain a clean and tidy environment.