Chesfield House

The accommodation for people is spread over ground and first floors of two houses. People have single bedroom accommodation with en-suite toilet and shower or bathing facilities; two of the bedrooms also have small kitchen facilities. People have shared access to communal rooms, kitchen and laundry.

The care service had not originally been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. However, it was clear that people living in Chesfield House were given choices and their independence and participation within the local community was being encouraged and enabled.

At our last inspection in March 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post. The registered manger was on leave at the time of the inspection. 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 continued to receive a safe service. They were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. Risks associated with people's needs including the environment, had been assessed and planned for and these were monitored for any changes. People did not have any undue restrictions placed upon them.

People continued to receive an effective service. 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 home supported this practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.

Staff received the training and support they required to meet people's individual needs, including meeting their nutritional needs. Staff worked well with external health care professionals and people were supported to access health services when required

The care people received was provided with kindness, compassion and dignity. People were supported to express their views and be involved as much as possible in making decisions and exercising choices and independence, wherever possible. People's diverse care and support needs were recognised and staff enabled people to access activities when they could not access such services independently.

People using the service were well known by staff and the staff team worked consistently to provide continuity of care and ensure that the support provided respected their needs. People's own individual communications methods were well known and consistently used by staff who were keen to advocate on behalf of people whenever they were indicating that they were unhappy, or demonstrating in any way that they were not at ease.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive improvement. Staff felt well-supported, they received regular supervision and participated in staff meetings and general discussions about the service that provided opportunities to share ideas, and exchange information. People continued to receive a service that was well led. Required information was available in the home and made available when requested.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found