The inspection was carried out on 14 March 2017, and was an unannounced inspection.

Woodbridge House is registered to provide residential care for a maximum of ten people who require varying levels of support to manage conditions such as learning disabilities, autism, Down syndrome, physical disabilities and non-verbal communication disorders. The service is within close proximity to a bus route, local shops and amenities, which gave easy access to the community for people. At the time of our inspection, ten people lived in the home.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in 08 July 2014, the service was rated Good in all domains and overall.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People continued to be safe at Woodbridge House. People were protected against the risk of abuse. We observed that people felt safe in the service. Staff recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse or harm. They followed appropriate guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and welfare. There were enough staff to keep people safe. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to check the suitability and fitness of new staff.

Each person had an up to date, personalised support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly. Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services. Staff encouraged people to actively participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people's privacy was maintained particularly when being supported with their personal care needs. 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.

The registered manager ensured the complaints procedure was made available in an accessible format if people wished to make a complaint. Regular checks and reviews of the service continued to be made to ensure people experienced good quality safe care and support.

The registered manager provided good leadership. They checked staff were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the service could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The inspection was unannounced. Woodbridge House is registered to provide residential care for a maximum of ten people who require varying levels of support to manage conditions such as learning disabilities, autism, down syndrome, physical disabilities and non-verbal communication disorders. The service is within close proximity to a bus route, local shops and amenities, which gave easy access to the community for people.

There was a registered manager at Woodbridge. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The service was safe because people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, and the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People we spoke with informed us that they felt very safe and had no concerns. One person said, “I feel very safe here with staff support” and a relative said, “I believe my relative is safe here because members of staff are good”.

Staff had the information they needed to provide personalised care and support. People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and people were involved in writing their plans of care. People told us they were very happy with the way they were cared for. People’s needs were taken into account with the use of pictures and Makaton sign language to facilitate those with communication difficulties.

Staff had been trained in essential areas and staff told us they received opportunities to meet with their line manager to discuss their work and performance.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. The care plans had information about each person's initial assessment and important people in their lives. Staff cared for people in the way that was set out in their care plans. Support was given in a person centred way, and produced plans with people that included promoting their health, financial arrangements and setting goals

The service was responsive to people’s needs. Care records showed that people visited the home before they moved in and the service had received various records about the people’s assessed needs. They responded to changes in needs by liaising with professionals regarding additional support that might be needed.

We saw that people were made aware of the complaints system. This was provided in a format that met their needs and people had their comments and complaints listened to and acted upon without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint. Staff told us that they would assist people who used the service to complain if they wished. A member of staff said, “I listen to them and encourage them to raise concerns in residents’ meetings”.

There was an open and positive culture which focussed on people who used the service. The manager had an open door policy so that people who lived in the home, staff and visitors could speak with him at any time.

Staff said they felt well supported by the manager. One staff member said, "We receive a lot of support from the manager and it is helpful and encouraging".

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. For example, the provider was a certificated gold member of British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD). The manager told us that being a member of BILD has enabled them to be up to date in their skills and knowledge of how to support, promote and improve people’s quality of life through raising standards of care and support in the home.

People were actively involved in developing the service in a variety of ways, such as residents’ meetings, satisfaction surveys, forums and day to day contact with the management team. Suggestions made by people were acted on. This meant that people’s views were taken into account.

Throughout our visit the staff and management team showed us that they were committed to providing a good service. There were effective systems in place to monitor and review the quality of the service. The management team carried out regular audits to make sure that any shortfalls were identified and improvements were made when needed.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. One person told us they were supported to make choices on how they wanted their room to be. One person said "Staff support me to clean my room. I make my own bed the way I like it". Another person said, “When I had a headache, I requested to see the GP and staff supported me to the clinic. They are good”.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We spoke with two people who used the service about their experience of living in the home. They told us that they liked their home. They commented "I like it in this home”. “I am happy here” and “I choose to go to college once a week and I enjoy it”.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to obtaining medicine and the recording of medicine. Medicines were kept safely.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

Staff were able to obtain further relevant qualifications, from time to time.

People were made aware of the complaints system. This was provided in a format that met their needs.

We did not speak directly to people using the service due to their difficulties in communication. However, we observed people being cared for, and we spoke with staff to understand people’s experience of care.

We were introduced to six people living at Woodbridge House during our inspection. We also met three support workers.

We saw that people were properly cared for and supported by the staff with their care needs. The staff demonstrated good insight in helping people with their individual needs. Care plans and assessment records were informative, and helped to guide the staff in giving people the support they needed to live a fulfilling life in the home and the community.

We found that some areas of the service did not look clean and that systems had not been followed to ensure that infection risks were minimised.

The company had systems in place to monitor the on-going quality of the home.

We spoke with one person about living at the home, two people briefly and observed others who were less able to communicate.

People had clearly developed friendships with the staff and interactions were calm, friendly and relaxed. People told us that they enjoyed the activities they took part in and one person was keen to tell us about the holidays he had been on that year.

One person told us about the friendships he had with others living at the home.

The service was busy but relaxed and people living at the home were leaving to take part in activities, be seen by the chiropodist, or arriving back having been taking part in activities or accessing the community.

We looked at the reviews that people were involved in, people were asked to tell staff about what they wanted to do, and what they enjoyed and didn’t enjoy about all aspects of daily life at the home, this was documented on a monthly basis. People had very positive comments to make about the home and clearly liked living at Woodbridge house.

Staff told us that they received the training and support they needed to provide the level of care the people living at the home needed. Staff said that the service was run to meet the needs of the people living there, and that mechanisms were in place to ensure that the residents were well cared for.