Roman Park

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 14 people. 12 people were using the service. 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, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff did not wear anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People were cared for by trained staff who knew how to protect them and keep them safe from harm. Appropriate numbers of staff were available to meet people's needs and people told us staff were always accessible. People received their medicines in a timely way and systems were in place to safely manage medicines. Accidents and Incidents were investigated fully with actions taken to avoid recurrence. The home was clean and tidy. Staff followed infection control procedures.

Care plans were complete and current. Care was delivered in a way that met good practice guidance and current legislation. Staff were well-trained and knew the specific needs and preferences of people living there. People had a variety of food choices each day and were complimentary of the quality of the food. 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.

Staff were caring towards the people using the service. The service had a warm and welcoming atmosphere. Staff were observed to work with people in a kind and patient manner that promoted their dignity. People using the service told us they felt they had a voice and felt respected by staff and management. Family members of people using the service told us they felt listened to, were always welcome and were actively involved in the lives of their loved ones.

Staff were responsive to people's specific needs and preferences. All staff had extensive knowledge about people using the service. One person told us, ' I like [staff member] because they know what I like and don't like.' Staff assisted people to pursue their desired outcomes at a pace suited to them. People could choose activities they enjoyed. A visiting professional told us, 'Everyone is doing something when I visit, it has a nice

vibe.' People whose conditions changed were promptly referred for medical reviews.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support 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, pursue their interests and become more independent.

The registered manager was referred to as 'friendly' and 'like family' by people using the service. Family members of people using the service told us the registered manager was approachable and acted quickly on any issues they might present. The registered manager had quality assurance systems in place to monitor service delivery and quality. The management team of this service has been stable for many years and this was reflected in a low staff turnover rate. Staff praised the leadership of the registered manager for creating a positive environment for them and for people using the service.