About the service:

William Court and Nunn Court is a care home that provides personal care for up to twelve people with learning disabilities and or autism. The accommodation consisted of one or two-bedroom apartments, with a bathroom, kitchenette, lounge and dining area. At the time of our inspection ten people were living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

The outcomes for people did not fully reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. Independence was promoted but opportunities for social inclusion was limited due to staffing levels provided.

Staff had not always received training to support their roles. The management team told us they were aware staff had not all received the required training identified as needed, but there was no robust action plan to address this. The management team were aware of shortfalls with staffing levels and were recruiting new staff. However, they had not ensured staffing levels consistently met people’s dependency needs.

Incident forms and other recording tools used to report behavioural incidents, were not effectively reviewed, monitored or analysed to understand people’s behaviour or to consider lessons learnt. Guidance for staff to support people at times of heightened anxiety, did not always include specific details of what staff needed to know.

Not all people could access the rear garden easily, due to there not being a ramp to support people’s mobility needs. An apartment where two people lived was the central place people and staff congregated and where the evening meal was cooked for everyone. It was not clear how the people living in this apartment, had been consulted about how their apartment was used for others.

People enjoyed the food and their nutritional needs were met. However, food stocks were low due to shopping happening once a week. The management team agreed to increase this to ensure food provisions were better maintained.

People told us they enjoyed living at the service and their only concerns were the lack of staff that impacted on them to access the community and activities of their choice. People told us staff were kind and caring and how they had developed positive relationships with them. Relatives were positive that staff understood their relations needs and were confident staff provided safe care. A professional told us how a person had been effectively supported to achieve some positive outcomes that had improved their health and wellbeing.

Information available for people was provided in easy read formats to support understanding. People could access spiritual support to meet their religious beliefs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs, routines and what was important to them. The registered manager, with the involvement of people and or their relatives, had reviewed and updated guidance for staff about people’s needs. The registered manager was in the process of introducing formal review processes to ensure people were involved in their ongoing care.

People’s safety had been considered and risks had been reduced by the introduction of equipment or guidance. Staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from known risks and avoidable harm. Safeguarding information was available for people who used the service and staff.

Medicine was managed safely. The risk to any infection was reduced by the maintenance of cleaning and hygiene standards.

People are 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 with any health conditions and accessed health services to maintain their health needs.

The service met the characteristics of requires improvement in most areas we inspected with good for Caring. We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 around staffing. De