House Martins Care Limited Number Two

People who used the service also benefited from being near another residential home owned by the same provider, House Martins Number One. The two services had a joined-up approach to delivering care and support across both of their locations. This enabled the service to provide a wide range of activities from both locations. Deployment of staff was also flexible between both locations which meant the service was well equipped to respond to people's individual needs. Throughout this inspection report there will be similarities in the content to that of the inspection report for House Martins Number One, which we also inspected alongside House Martins Number Two.

The service has 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.

We were assisted throughout the inspection by a registered manager. 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.

This inspection took place on 18 and 19 October 2018. The service was last inspected on 25 and 26 January 2016 and received an overall rating of 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.

We found people were cared for by sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and experienced staff who were safely recruited. Staff received the essential training and support necessary to enable them to do their job effectively and care for people safely.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Risks to people's safety were assessed and medicines were administered safely.

Infection control policies continued to protect people from the risk of infection.

There was an open learning culture and staff felt supported in their roles. This was reflected in a low

turnover of staff and this benefited the quality of care that was provided.

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 service continued to work within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the importance of involving people as much as possible in their care and acted in their best interests if decisions needed to be made on their behalf.

Staff spoke about people with genuine empathy and compassion and demonstrated a commitment to providing good care. Staff were observed to interact with people and each other in kind and caring ways. The service had clear values in relation to supporting people to maintain their privacy, dignity and respect.

Key workers were knowledgeable about people's needs and people told us that they were happy with the care they received.

Care and support plans were regularly reviewed. People were supported to maintain good health and receive ongoing healthcare support. Care and support plans were regularly reviewed. Care and support plans included hospital passports and health action plans, which ensured they were supported effectively should they need to access health services.

People continued to receive support with their nutrition and hydration. Advice and guidance from health professionals had been included in the support plans. People liked the food and could choose what they wanted to eat and told us that they liked the food.

Staff were proactive at promoting activities and access to the wider community. People participated in regular activities that they chose and enjoyed including holidays and access to paid employment. End of life care was person-centred and focused on providing the best care possible. This included considering the persons wishes and preferences and involving both professionals and family.

The registered manager was committed to providing a high-quality service and spoke in a caring and compassionate way about the people who used the service. The service had internal quality assurance systems in place to monitor performance and to drive improvement.

The service continued to work closely with their partners and stakeholders to share skills and knowledge and maintain the quality of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found