SENSE - 2 and 10 Grove Road

SENSE 2 and 10 Grove Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodates eight people who are living with a learning disability or autism spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the service, with an additional person using the service as respite. One of the people currently living at the service is in the early stages of moving to a service that can meet their future needs.

The care 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.

At our last inspection on 30 March 2016 we rated the service 'good.' At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of 'good' overall. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring which 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.

People continued to receive a safe service. Medicine administration records were completed by staff when they had administered the medicines safely. Where medicines were given in variable doses the guidance for staff was not always clear. Medicines records were not always written using good practice guidance. Risks associated with people's needs had been assessed and measures were in place to reduce risks. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and safe recruitment procedures for staff were in place. Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify any trends and measures were put in place to reduce the likelihood of these happening again.

The service continued to be effective. Staff received training and support they required including specialist training to meet people's individual needs. People were supported with their nutritional needs. The staff worked well with external health care professionals, people were supported with their needs and accessed health services when required. 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 principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.

People received care from staff who were kind, compassionate and treated them with dignity. Staff had developed positive relationships with the people they supported, they understood people's needs, preferences, and what was important to them. Staff knew how to support people based on their likes and preferences. People's independence was promoted.

People continued to receive a responsive service. People's needs were assessed and their support was planned with them and or their relative where required. Staff knew and understood people's needs well. People received opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies, and social activities were offered. There was a complaints procedure available if this was needed.

The service remained well-led. The monitoring of service provision was effective because shortfalls had been identified and resolved. There was an open and transparent and person-centred culture with adequate leadership. People were asked to share their feedback about the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found