Southview

People continued to receive safe care. People were safe and staff knew how to keep them safe from harm. The provider had a recruitment process to ensure they had enough staff to support people safely. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff followed infection control guidance. Accidents and incidents were monitored.

People continued to receive effective care. Staff were supported and had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. People had choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s nutritional needs were met and they received enough to eat and drink to ensure they had a healthy diet. People accessed health care when needed.

People continued to receive care from staff who were kind and caring. Staff supported and encouraged people to be involved in how decision were made about their support. Staff were caring, compassionate and kind. People’s privacy dignity and independence were respected.

People continued to receive responsive care. Staff knew people well. Their support needs were assessed and planned to ensure they received the support they needed. People took part in activities of interest and their preferences, likes and dislikes were known to staff. The provider had a complaints process which people were aware of to share any concerns.

The service continued to be well managed. The environment was welcoming, warm, comfortable and clean. The registered manager was known and made themselves available. There were good audit systems in place to ensure the service continued to meet people’s needs.

Rating at last inspection: Rated Good (Report published June 2016).

About the service: Southview is a care home without nursing. It provides personal care and accommodation and can accommodate up to six people. The service specialises in providing care and support to people with autism. At the time of our inspection five people were living at Southview.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Southview is a care home owned by Voyage 1 Ltd and provides accommodation and personal care for up to six younger adults with a learning disability.

Southview is required to have a registered manager and there was one in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who lived at Southview were unable to share their views of the service due to their health care needs. We observed care and support provided to people, talked with staff and relatives about the quality of the service provided and reviewed a range of records held by the service. Relatives told us Southview was, “always a happy place.”

Care plans contained risk assessments which identified when people were at risk, for example from accessing the community. Guidance for staff contained detailed information on the action staff could take to minimise the risk.

Medicine Administration Records (MAR) were clear and accurate. This showed how much medicine people were receiving and whether the amount of medicine in stock tallied with the amounts recorded.

The registered manager had oversight of the service and people, relatives and staff told us they were available and approachable. Management was supported by an effective staff team. Staff were positive about how the service was run. One staff member commented, “I love working here. The team are very good, very supportive.” There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.

Relatives told us they considered Southview to be a safe environment and said staff were skilled and competent in how they supported people. There was a relaxed family feel to the service. It was clear that people were comfortable with each other and staff.

Pre-employment checks such as disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks and references were carried out. New employees undertook an induction before starting work to help ensure they had the relevant knowledge and skills to care for people. Training was regularly refreshed so staff had access to the most up to date information. There was a wide range of training available to help ensure staff were able to meet people's needs.

Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been made to the local authority appropriately. Training for the MCA and DoLS was included in the induction process and in the list of training requiring updating regularly. The registered manager and staff demonstrated an understanding of the principles underpinning the legislation. For example, staff ensured people consented before giving personal care. Mental capacity assessments had been completed as required.

People were supported and encouraged to take part in a range of personalised activities organised for them by the service. Visitors were made to feel welcome at the service and staff recognised the value of these relationships to people.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Care plans and risk assessments provided detailed strategies in order to support people who may exhibit challenging behaviours. The provider conducted regular audits to ensure people and relatives had the opportunity to express any concerns about their safety in the home or in the community. One relative said: "This home is very safe, I have no worries about that".

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. The manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one; and was aware of recent changes to the legislation.

Is the service effective?

Care workers we spoke with had a good understanding of people's needs and told us they felt the care plans and risk assessments in place were effective. We found the provider had an effective system in place to check and reassess the suitability of care workers to work with vulnerable people. A relative said: "The care plans are effective, I looked at one of them recently and I was able to see they had updated something that had changed".

The provider had effective systems in place for obtaining consent and acted in accordance with the law. We saw documentation that showed the provider held "best interest" meetings to ensure people were supported effectively.

Is the service caring?

People's life style choices, preferences, interests, and different needs had been written in their plans and care and support had been provided to make sure these were upheld. A relative said: "All the staff here are caring. If they were not caring I would look for a different home. The staff are great here and I have such a good relationship with them".

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they received care.This included involving them in regular care reviews and keeping them or their relatives informed of changes, if appropriate. We saw that people's health needs were monitored and if necessary the support of health care professionals obtained.This helped to ensure that the delivery of care was responsive to people's needs and based on up to date information and guidance. The records showed that any concerns were followed up and relevant action was taken.

Is the service well led?

There were clear lines of accountability within the service. We saw evidence that regular audits of the quality and safety of the service were carried out. For example, there were audits of the care plans and care workers training records.

In order to meet individual needs, members of staff worked with a variety of healthcare professionals including learning disability teams.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place. Staff we spoke to demonstrated to us they knew how and when to use them.

We spoke to people living at the home who were able to communicate with us in a variety of ways. One person told us they were "very happy" living at the home and another person told us the staff were "the best".

During our visit we were able to observe people preparing their own meals and enjoying their food. People living at the home were assisted to shop and cook for themselves and appeared to enjoy the experience. Staff we spoke to were able to identify correct procedures for the safe storage, preparation and handling of food.

Quality audits were in place to ensure that services provided by the home were regularly assessed and monitored. Records showed us that families and professionals involved in people's care were consulted. Outcomes from the last audit were positive.

We saw that details of the registered manager were not up to date and need to be amended.

People told us they were involved in the reviews of their support plan and were asked their views by staff. People told us they felt safe and were able to raise any concerns or problems with staff or the manager, who would help them to resolve the issue. We saw that people were asked for their feedback as part of the review of their support plans.