Ardath is registered to provide accommodation for 32 people who require personal care; some people are living with dementia. The inspection took place on 4 and 5 October 2016 and was unannounced. There were 27 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

We last visited Ardath on 26 June 2013 when we judged they were compliant with all the areas we inspected.

The provider is a not-for-profit housing association providing sheltered housing, independent living and care homes. Ardath is one of four care homes owned by the provider. The management team consisted of a registered manager, a deputy manager and senior care staff. The manager at the service had registered with CQC. 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.

Ardath was well run by an experienced registered manager, who promoted a positive culture in the home to listen and act on people’s feedback. Staff practice respected people’s choices and valued people as individuals so staff knew when to change their approach based on their knowledge of the person. There were systems to monitor the quality of the service, including responding to suggestions for improvements.

The range of activities had increased. Improvements were planned to make the garden more secure and some areas of the home had been refurbished and updated. There were positive relationships between staff and people living at the home, and their visitors. People told us they felt safe. There were systems in place to protect people from harm and abuse. Medicines were well managed.

There were sufficient numbers of appropriately qualified and experienced staff available to meet people's individual needs. Recruitment practices ensured people were supported by suitable staff.

Some people living at the home said they had concerns about staffing. The registered manager was committed to continuity when using agency staff by working with the agency to have the same staff visit the home. They provided information the day after the inspection to show how they were providing further ways for staff to feedback on staffing levels and the current arrangements for back up staff. Work was taking place to recruit staff during the inspection and since the inspection; the registered manager has confirmed new staff had been recruited.

People were kept informed about changes within the home and plans to improve the service through meetings and newsletters. The registered manager was known to people living at the home and they were confident concerns or complaints would be listened to and acted upon.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and demonstrated through their practice an understanding of how this impacted on the way they worked. However, some records needed to be improved to further protect people’s rights. People were offered a choice of meals. They were supported with their health and had access to health and social care professionals, when necessary.

We spoke to six people who lived at the home, as well as four members of staff and two visitors and examined care plans and staff files. We visited all areas of the home and found it was light, airy, clean and the decor was fresh and bright. All corridors were wide and clutter free and had support rails. Communal areas were homely and comfortable.

People we spoke with told us they enjoyed living at the home and that they felt well cared for by the staff. One person told us, "The staff here are beautiful. They couldn't be better." Another said, "I can't find fault with them. The food is good and there is always an alternative."

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

We saw by direct observation and checking staff rotas that there were a sufficient number of experienced, skilled and qualified care staff to provide appropriate levels of support to people who lived at the home. This included two dedicated domestic staff, a chef and a kitchen assistant as well as a handyman.

We examined medicine administration systems and records and found them to be safe and appropriate. We also examined systems and records kept by the home and saw that there were good levels of quality assurance monitoring to maintain standards. Where the need for improvement had been identified, changes had been planned or implemented.

We spoke with five people who used the service, one relative, and four staff members, one of whom was the manager.

We observed the interaction between people in the home and this was seen to be positive and constructive at all times. People told us that they and the people they represented were treated with dignity and respect, and received the care they required.

We looked at arrangements in place to maintain a suitable and safe environment. These were found to be effective with the home's environment being well maintained and promoting people’s well being.

We reviewed the recruitment practice and found the home did not follow robust recruitment processes.

We looked at the systems and processes the home had in place to respond to complaints. These processes ensured complaints could be raised and resolved to people's satisfaction.

In this report the names of a two registered managers appear Miss Jane Narborough was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time

People told us that they were happy with the care and support they were receiving and that their needs were being met. They said that the staff treated them with respect, listened to them and supported them to raise any concerns they had about their care.

Some people who use the service were unable to communicate and tell us what they thought of the quality of the care due to their communication difficulties. However through observation during the site visit we were able to observe staff supporting people who use the service in a respectful way and that staff took time to explain where possible the options available and supported them to make choices.

We had the opportunity to speak to a visiting GP who commented on the service provided. She said that she had visited the home for a while and felt that the quality of care was very good and had no concerns, She also felt staff had a positive attitude and treated people with respect and dignity.