Apna House

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 13 people. This is larger 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, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home.

People's experience of using this service: People told us they felt safe with the support of staff. Risks to people had been assessed and staff had a good understanding of these risks and how to minimise them.

Where required people were supported to receive their medication as prescribed and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of types and signs of abuse and how to report concerns of abuse.

People were supported by staff who had the skills to meet their needs. People were able to consent to their care and we saw staff understood the importance of seeking consent before providing support.

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 supported this practice.

People's nutritional needs were met, and people were happy with the support they received to enjoy a choice of meals. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.

The provider had systems in place to identify and support people's protected characteristics from potential discrimination. Protected characteristics are the nine groups protected under the Equality Act 2010. They include, age, disability, race, religion or belief etc. Staff members we spoke with knew people well, they could tell us about people's individual needs and how they were supported.

People we spoke with told us they liked the staff that supported them, and we saw people were comfortable around staff. People's privacy and dignity was respected, and their independence was maintained and encouraged.

People benefited from receiving care and support from a stable staff group which enabled continuity of care. The service supported and employed a number of people of Asian heritage. This meant that staff

could communicate with people in their preferred language.

People were involved in their care and their needs were assessed and reviewed on a regular basis. People's care records were person centred and guided staff on the way they preferred their care and support to be provided.

People told us they felt able to speak to staff with any concerns. The service had not received written complaints; however, the provider had a system in place to ensure any complaints received would be logged, investigated and responded to and any learning used to improve the service provided.

The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service that they provided and looked to develop the service further. People told us they liked the registered manager and staff spoke positively about the service and said it was well managed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk