This unannounced inspection took place on 10 May 2018.

Bablake House is a care home registered to provide personal care and accommodation for a maximum of 45 people, including people living with dementia. The home is located on the outskirts of Coventry and the accommodation is set out over two floors. There were 37 people living at the home at the time of our visit. This included eight people, on a short term basis who had been discharged from hospital for a period of assessment and re-enablement known as ‘discharge to assess’.

The principle behind ‘discharge to assess’ is that people who no longer require care in hospital but are not yet able to return home, can be supported in a more appropriate setting such as a care home for a period of assessment and re-enablement before returning home.

People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last comprehensive inspection in April 2017 we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’. This was because the service was not as responsive to people’s needs as it should have been and was not consistently well led. For example, people did not always receive personalised care, staff were not always responsive to people’s needs in a timely way and there was not enough for people to do during the day. Quality monitoring systems were not consistently robust and we had not been notified of all incidents we should have been told about. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and have rated the service as ‘good’.

The service had a registered manager. This is a requirement of the provider's registration. 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.

The home provided safe care for people who lived at Bablake House. Staff understood what might constitute abuse and the action to take if they had any concerns. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and staff were deployed effectively within the home. Staff understood risks related with people’s care and knew how to manage risks to minimise harm. The suitability of staff was checked during recruitment procedures to make sure they were safe to work at the home. People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

Staff had completed training in infection control and wore gloves and aprons when supporting people and carrying out their work to help prevent the spread of infection. The home was clean and tidy, there was building work taking place but this did not impact on people’s communal space.

People had an assessment completed before moving to the home to make sure staff could meet their care and support needs. Staff received training and had the knowledge and skills they needed to meet people’s needs effectively. The registered manager and care staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and how to put these into practice. Capacity assessments were completed and where required Deprivation of Liberties authorisations to keep people safe were in place. People’s nutritional and healthcare needs were assessed and kept under review.

People were positive about the food provided and received diets to support their health conditions. People had sufficient to eat and drink during the day.

Some people at Bablake House were living with dementia, during our inspection visit we saw they looked contented and settled. People said staff were helpful and understanding, and we saw friendly and caring interactions between staff and the people they cared for. Staff maintained people’s privacy, and treated people with dignity

Bablake House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 45 older people, including people living with dementia. The home also provides placements for up to ten people on a short term basis for re-enablement. There were 41 people living at the home on the day of our inspection visit.

At the last inspection of the service in January 2016 we rated the service as Good. Since the last inspection the provider had changed their provider name to Bablake House Limited. This meant the service was required to be re-inspected and rated. We inspected Bablake House on 6 April 2017. The inspection was unannounced.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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.

There were systems and processes to protect people from risk of harm. Staff understood their responsibilities for keeping people safe and for reporting concerns about abuse or poor practice within the home. Risks to people’s individual health and wellbeing were identified and care was planned to minimise the risks. Staff’s suitability for their role was checked before they started working at the home. There was a safe procedure for managing people’s medicines.

The registered manager made sure there were enough staff to keep people safe. However, people and staff told us there were not always enough staff to respond quickly to people’s requests for support because they were so busy. During our visit we saw there were periods of time where no staff were available in the lounge areas where most people spent their day.

Staff received the training and support they needed to meet people’s needs effectively. All staff, whatever their position, had been trained to understand dementia so they could interact effectively with people living in the home.

People told us staff were friendly and caring. During our visit people were treated as individuals and were encouraged to make choices about their care. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care. However, how staff referred to people who required assistance to eat, did not uphold their dignity.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Where people had their liberty restricted in their best interests, applications had been submitted to, or authorised by the Supervisory Body. Staff understood how to support people to make decisions about their daily lives.

There were processes to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met and people had enough to eat and drink during the day. People’s health needs were monitored and people were referred to healthcare services when a need was identified.

The provider used a computerised care planning system that provided up to date information about people’s care needs to staff. Staff had a handover about any changes in people’s care when they came on shift and received a written handover about each person on their handsets. People’s care records contained individualised information about how people liked to receive their care. Most staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences. However, not all staff had read the handover or care plans on their handsets so were unable to tell us about people’s current needs.

People told us they were satisfied with the care they received. People told us there was occasional entertainment and activities but most people said there was not much to do during the day to keep them occupied or stimulated.

Visitors were welcomed and relatives and friends could visit at any time. People and relatives told us they could express their views and opinions about the home