10 December 2018
During a routine inspection
The service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the CQC guidance, Registering the Right Support, and other best practice guidance. These values included choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism who lived in the home could live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. 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.
People were kept safe because staff understood safeguarding principles. They conducted robust risk assessments and ensured that identified risks were mitigated.
Medicine management was safe and steps had been taken to minimise the risk of errors.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff that had been recruited safely and had checks undertaken to ensure they were suitable for their role. Staff were trained and competent to fulfil their roles.
People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took into account their nutritional needs. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when needed to maintain their health and wellbeing.
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.
People received a service that was caring. Staff knew people's needs well and were responsive and supportive. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff promoted people’s independence.
Staff were provided with the necessary support and encouragement to ensure people received good quality care.
Quality assurance systems were effective and the service showed that it learnt lessons and made improvements when things went wrong.
The service sought feedback from various sources to drive improvement and worked well with partner agencies.
Some notifiable incidents had not been reported to the Care Quality Commission.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.