This inspection took place on 10 and 11 October 2016 and was unannounced.

Abbey View is registered to provide accommodation and nursing or personal care for up to 52 people. There were 51 people living at the service at the time of inspection. The home is situated in Sherborne and offers accommodation split over two floors. There are communal lounge and dining areas and a café and hairdresser on the ground floor. There is lift access to the first floor and some bedrooms have an ensuite. There is a garden to the side of the service which people are able to use and the main entrance is wheelchair accessible.

There was a registered manager 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 felt safe at the service, they were protected from the risk of harm by staff who understood the possible signs of abuse and how to recognise these and report any concerns. Staff were also aware of how to whistle blow if they needed to and reported that they would be confident to do so.

People had individual risk assessments but these were not always recorded accurately. Staff were aware of the risks people faced and their role in managing risk. The registered manager had a plan in place to improve the consistency of recording.

Where referrals to healthcare professionals were required, these were made promptly.

There were enough staff available and people did not have to wait for support. People had support and care from staff who had been safely recruited and understood their needs. Staff were consistent in their knowledge of people’s care needs and spoke confidently about the support people needed to meet these needs.

Medicines were given as prescribed and stored securely.

People were supported by staff who had the necessary training and skills to support them. Training was provided in a number of areas and refresher sessions were booked for certain topics on a regular basis. We identified that more specialist training would be of benefit and the registered manager arranged this promptly.

Staff understood and supported people to make choices about their care. People's legal rights were protected because staff knew about and used appropriate legislation.

Everyone described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough to eat and drink. When people needed particular diets or support to eat and drink safely this was in place.

People felt that staff were caring and told us that they had choices about their care. Staff understood their role in supporting people to make choices. We observed that people were relaxed with staff and there was a friendly atmosphere.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

People were supported by staff who knew their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff told us that they communicated well and there were regular handovers at each shift change. There were clear processes in place for each shift and staff knew their roles and responsibilities.

People had individual care records which were person centred and gave details about people’s history, what was important to them and identified support they required from staff.

Relatives told us that they felt welcomed at the service and people and relatives said that they would be confident to make a complaint or raise any concerns if they needed to.

The service was well led and we were told that the registered manager was approachable and took action if changes were needed. Staff were encouraged to raise ideas and suggestions and demonstrated the core values of the service during the inspection.

Quality assurance measures were regular and completed both on an organisational and service leve

A single inspector carried out this inspection. 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? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People participated in their care plans and families or people's representative’s involvement was welcomed. People and their families commented on the positive and friendly atmosphere of the home. We saw the home had strong links with the local community through the workforce and local events and community facilities. This helped provide back-up arrangements in the event of foreseeable emergencies. Staff showed they knew people and also followed individual care plans when assisting people.

Is the service effective?

People's choices were respected and people were assisted to choose as much of their routine themselves as possible. We saw that people went out and were encouraged to attend local clubs. Where they were unable to go out the home provided one to one interaction on a regular basis. People's ability to consent to their care and treatment had been considered and assessments of mental capacity had been made to ensure people's rights were protected. The service worked with other professionals and agencies to ensure best practice was followed and people's needs were met safely and effectively. Staff were encouraged to professionally develop, for example some care staff had studied for further qualifications such as nursing. Staff were supported by group and individual supervision, appraisal and regular training.

Is the service caring?

Guidance in care plans was detailed and up to date and guided staff in how they cared for people. Staff showed they were aware of individual care plans and that they worked as a team to ensure people's needs were met accordingly. People we spoke with told us they valued the friendliness and kindness of staff. We observed people being given time to express themselves and staff taking time to talk with people.

Is the service responsive?

The home encouraged feedback from people and staff and we saw examples where this was acted upon. For example, there was a catering committee where people represented the views of people about the catering service and quality of menus. The registered manager and management team had daily contact with staff and people to hear about issues or complaints.

Is the service well led?

The home benefitted from a registered manager and workforce and no agency staff were used. The home used audits and gathered a range of information on a regular basis to check on the quality of the service, identify what was working well and what needed improving. We saw examples of where errors were detected quickly and rectified. People’s views of the quality of their care were sought formally through a survey in May 2014. We found information gathered from this showed respondents mostly rated the service either excellent or good. Actions were in progress to respond to more detailed comments. This meant the home sought feedback and acted upon it.

We spoke with nine people and two people’s relatives. They told us that staff provided the care and support they needed. Everyone spoke very highly of the home. People said staff were kind and they felt listened to.

Some people who lived at the home had been assessed as not having capacity to make choices and decisions which affected their lives. We found staff were not aware of their roles and responsibilities in relation to capacity and best interest decisions.

We found information in people's files that showed relevant people had not been consulted on decisions about people's care and support. This meant that systems and safeguards to ensure people experience appropriate care and support and to protect their human rights were not in place.

We found staff had completed safeguarding training and the home had an up to date safeguarding adults policy and processes that were accessible to staff.

We saw evidence that people had been involved in developing their own care and support plans.

We found that staff had key training in most aspects of their roles.

People told us they “were very comfortable and very happy” “looked after very well”, feel welcome and can come and go when they want to”.

We observed that people were treated with respect and were supported to make choices during meal times and daily activities.

We found the manager did not have systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of services.