We undertook an unannounced inspection on 10 May 2017. At our previous inspection on 16 June 2015 the service was rated ‘good’ overall and for each key question.

Woodcote Road provides accommodation, care and support to up to 12 adults who have mental health needs. At the time of our inspection 11 people were living there.

The same registered manager remained 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 remained safe. Staff assessed and managed the risks to people’s safety. Staff adhered to safeguarding adults procedures and escalated any concerns observed. People received their medicines as prescribed and were supported to self-manage their medicines safely. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. Recent changes to staffing arrangements at night were under regular review.

Staff continued to update their knowledge and skills through attendance at training courses and supervision sessions. Staff adhered to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and obtained people’s consent prior to providing support. Staff worked with people to ensure they received a nutritious and balanced diet. Staff encouraged people to access healthcare services when they required them and worked with professionals from the community mental health team to ensure people received the support they required with their mental health.

Staff engaged people in friendly conversations and made themselves available if people had any concerns or wanted to talk. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were encouraged to maintain contact with their friends and family. People were able to make decisions about their care and how they spent their time.

People received the support they required to build their confidence, learn new skills and work towards moving to independent living. Staff supported people to undertake activities of daily living and to work towards agreed goals. Staff encouraged people to engage in education courses and follow their interests. The provider’s complaints process remained in place and all complaints were reviewed by the registered manager.

There had been some changes to the management and leadership of the service. Nevertheless, staff felt well supported by their manager and the provider. People and key stakeholders were asked about their views of the service with the aim of improving service delivery. Systems were in place to review the quality of service provision. The registered manager adhered to the requirements of their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

This inspection took place on 16 June 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 23 April 2014 the service met the regulations we inspected.

75, Woodcote Road provides accommodation, care and support for people with mental health needs. The aim is to help people to live with more independence in the community and the average length of stay is approximately two years. There were 11 people using the service when we visited.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the service they received. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place that informed the manager and staff as well as people who used the service and their relatives about how to report suspected abuse.

People had risk assessments and risk management plans to reduce the likelihood of harm. Staff knew how to use the information to keep people safe and work with them positively to help them be as independent as possible.

The registered manager ensured there were safe recruitment practices to help protect people from the risks of being cared for by staff assessed to be unfit or unsuitable.

Safe medicines management processes were in place and people were supported to self-medicate where they were able to do so.

People received effective care because staff were appropriately trained and supported to do their jobs.

All the people living in the home had the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Staff had received appropriate training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS provides a process to make sure people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way.

People were encouraged and supported by staff to become more independent by developing the knowledge and skills to do so. This included eating well and staying healthy. When people needed care and support from healthcare professionals, staff ensured people received this promptly.

People had care plans outlining the goals they wished to achieve whilst at the service and what support they required from staff to achieve them. People were involved in planning their care and their views were sought and planned for as a central and important part of the process. The service regularly monitored people’s changing needs and involved them in discussions about any changes that needed to be made to their care plans.

Care workers respected people’s privacy and treated them with respect and dignity.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships with the people that were important to them. Relatives and other visitors were made to feel welcome and told us they were free to visit people in the home without restrictions.

The provider encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and responded to them in a timely manner. People were aware of the complaints policy and that was used effectively.

People gave positive feedback about the management of the service. The registered manager and the staff were approachable and fully engaged with providing good quality care for people who used the service. The provider had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service and people were asked for their opinions via feedback surveys. Action plans were developed where required to address areas that needed improvements.

When we visited Woodcote Road there were 10 people using the service. We spoke with four of the people using the service, the registered manager and four members of staff. We reviewed four people's care plans and four staff files.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Was the service safe?

People who use the services were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. They told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and the process for submitting an application. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. The registered manager ensured there was sufficient staff on duty, appropriately qualified, to meet the care needs of people who used the services. This helped to ensure that people’s needs were always met.

Was the service effective?

People who use the services health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. They confirmed with us that they had been involved in writing their care plans and that the plans reflected their needs. We inspected three people’s care files. They included essential information about the person, needs and risk assessment information, care plans and care programme approach records, records of health care appointments, a “my physical health care plan” and records of keyworker meetings.

Staff received regular and appropriate training and supervision to ensure they were able to meet the specific needs of people using the service.

Was the service caring?

People who use the services were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting the people who use the services.

People who use the services told us they were treated with respect by staff. They attended regular residents meetings. One person told us that they enjoyed the things they did in terms of their activities. Another person said, “I go out every day. I do a lot in the community and I do voluntary work one day a week”. Somebody else said, “I do some cooking and other things around the home. I am learning to do things for myself and I enjoy what I do”.

Was the service responsive?

People who use the services met regularly with their keyworker to review their care and support. This was important as this helped staff understand what people wanted or needed or how they were feeling.

All the people who use the services we spoke with knew how to make a complaint. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place and although no complaints had been made since the last inspection staff indicated that they would be supportive of any resident who needed to complain. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure that people were supported in a co-ordinated way. It was clear that the main objective was to support people to achieve their maximum potential in independent living.

The manager carried out regular checks to assess and monitor the quality of services provided and took appropriate action to address any issues or concerns about service quality.

The views of people who use the services, their representatives and staff were listened to by the manager. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We found that before people received any treatment or support they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes. One person told us, "they always ask me what I want or if I want to do something." People understood and knew how to change any decisions about their support and treatment.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People we spoke with were happy with the service and the way in which their treatment and support was delivered. One person told us, "I like it here, I have everything I need."

People told us they felt safe. We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff received regular training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had a good knowledge about the types and signs of abuse and what action to take if they were concerned people were at risk of abuse. We found that there were effective recruitment procedures in place and saw evidence that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

We reviewed people's personal records, staff records and several other records relating to the management of the service. We found the records were accurate, well organised, securely stored and easily located.

Comments from people using the service were generally positive, with indication that staff were kind and helpful in meeting their care needs. People were observed to be treated with respect by staff and to have their privacy and dignity respected. Everyone spoke positively about the staff. People told us that they thought that the home was a nice place to live in.

Overall, people we met on the day of our visit told us that staff always treated them well and listened to what they had to say. Comments included, ‘the staff are good’ and ‘I like living here’. We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service. People who use the service are involved in their care and support, and their independence and privacy are promoted.