Coopers Mill

The service was developed, and whilst not intentional was in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The main house was much larger than a domestic style property and was set in its own grounds. The bungalow had been built to the side of the main house and they were joined by a kitchen. The flats were to the rear of the main house and shared a large landscaped garden. The home supported 20 people over the three buildings which is more than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service were being updated to support this practice. The service had unintentional but accurately applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

Staff received good training and were supported to gain focused qualifications. People had choices in how,

when and what they ate and staff encouraged healthy eating. The provider worked with relevant professionals to ensure people's needs were met.

People's autonomy and independence was respected, they were involved in both developing their care and support and influenced the running of the home and grounds. People's views and choices were respected and where required specific support was provided by advocacy services. People were constantly asked for feedback. Relationships between staff and people living in the home were positive, friendly and relaxed.

Each person was provided with support they had chosen. The design of the service allowed people to experience independence where possible. Activities were led by the individual with people having volunteer jobs in the community or helping with the grounds on site.

Everyone was happy in their role on the staff team and we saw good peer support. The service was reviewed regularly by way of surveys and questionnaires and regular monitoring of the service was completed. The provider engaged well with the inspection and responded immediately to any areas which could be improved. The previous report rating was displayed around the home and the provider communicated any areas of concern with the care quality commission as required.