This inspection took place on the 10 April 2018 and was unannounced.

Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Accommodation is provided over three floors with all bedrooms on the first and second floor. All the bedrooms are single occupancy with ensuite facilities. Each floor has shared facilities of a lounge with kitchen and dining area and assisted bathing facilities. People with mobility issues are accommodated in the service, with a passenger lift for level access throughout the building, and further work at the front of the service has further improved accessibility. People were also able to use a garden with seating areas in the better weather. The service is located near to local amenities.

Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre provides personal care and support for up to 24 people who have a diagnosed functional mental health need such as anxiety, depression, paranoia and schizophrenia. Care and support is provided to adults over 40 years of age, but predominantly to older people. Respite care is provided or a period of short-term transitional care/assessment. This is to enable a period of assessment of peoples care and accommodation needs, and can be used to assist people to move out of hospital prior to moving into more permanent accommodation, or to support people following a period of ill health or crisis. Staff will support people to help maximise their independence, choice and dignity. There were also three people receiving long term care who have lived in the service for a number of years, prior to the changes to the services admissions criteria. Staff in the service work closely with staff from the Sussex Partnership NHS Trust. Regular visits were made from visiting psychiatrists and a registered mental nurse (RMN) is seconded to work in the service and provide support and guidance for staff. There were 20 people living in the service on the day of our inspection.

At the last inspection on 11 November 2015 the service was rated overall Good. At this inspection we found the service remained overall Good. At the last inspection there were limited opportunities for people to join in social activities. At this inspection we found work had been undertaken to address this and improve the social activities people can participate in and access in the local neighbourhood.

Systems had been maintained to keep people safe. People told us they felt safe with the care provided. People’s comments received when asked if they felt safe and why included, “Yes I do. Everybody helped and no troubles”, and “Yes, Nothing is dangerous in my view.” They knew who they could talk with if they had any worries. They felt they could raise concerns and they would be listened to. People remained protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to identify and report it. Assessments of risks to people had been developed and maintained. Staff told us they had continued to receive supervision, and be supported to develop their skills and knowledge by receiving training which helped them to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. People told us care staff had the knowledge and skills to provide their care and support.

People's individual care and support needs continued to be identified before they received a service. A detailed care and support plan was in place to ensure consistent care had been provided. Care and support was personalised and based on the identified needs of each person. People told us they felt listened to, supported to be independent and they were involved in decisions about their care. Staff had a good understanding of consent.

People were happy with the care provided. People continued to be supported by kind and caring staff who treated them with respect and

This inspection took place on 11 November and 19 November 2015 and was unannounced.

Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre provides personal care and support for up to 24 people who have a diagnosed functional mental health need. Care and support is provided to adults over 40 years of age but predominantly to people over 50 years of age. At the time of the inspection the majority of people were over 60 years of age. Short-term transitional care is provided for a period of up to 12 weeks. This is to enable a further period of assessment of peoples care and accommodation needs, and can be used to assist people to move out of hospital prior to moving into more permanent accommodation. Staff will support people to help maximise their independence, choice and dignity. There were also five people receiving long term care who have lived in the service for a number of years, prior to the changes to the services admissions criteria. Staff in the service worked closely with the Sussex Partnership NHS Trust. Regular visits were made from visiting psychiatrists and a registered mental nurse (RMN) was seconded to work in the service and provide support and guidance for staff. There were 22 people living in the service on the days of our inspection.

Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre is a two storey building. People with mobility issues were accommodated in the service, with a passenger lift for level access throughout the building. All the bedrooms were single occupancy with ensuite facilities. All lounges have kitchen and dining facilities. People were also able to use a garden area in the better weather.

There was a registered manager for 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.

The service was going through a significant period of review, where the provider and local stakeholders were looking at the service provision and what was needed and how the service would best be provided in the future.

There were limited opportunities for people to join in social activities in the service. This is an area that requires improvement.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Senior staff had policies and procedures to follow and demonstrated an awareness of where to get support and guidance when making a DoLS application. Care staff had received training or guidance on DoLS. They were aware of DoLS and who had a DoLS application agreed, and of the care to be provided and agreements as part of the DoLS application to be followed.

Senior staff monitored peoples dependency in relation to the level of staffing needed to ensure people’s care and support needs were met. Staff told us they were supported to develop their skills and knowledge by receiving training which helped them to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. Training records were kept up-to-date and the registered manager audited the training records to ensure all staff had attended the required training to meet peoples care and support needs.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place for the proper and safe management of medicines.

People told us they felt safe. They knew who they could talk with if they had any concerns. They felt it was somewhere where they could raise concerns and they would be listened to. The service was clean was a maintenance programme in place which ensured repairs were carried out in a timely way. Regular checks had been completed to ensure equipment and services were in good working order.

People's individual care and support needs were assessed before they moved into the service. Care and support provided was personalised and based on the identified needs of each individual. People had a care and support plan and risk assessments in place, which had been reviewed. The detail for staff to follow was good and gave clear guidance for care staff to follow. One visiting professional told us they had found staff had an excellent understanding of people’s complex needs. It had been clear that the people had benefited from the service they had received. Enough to be able to move into a more permanent service.

Charts were in place to monitor people’s food and fluid intake and observations had been consistently recorded. Staff told us that communication throughout the service was usually good and included comprehensive handovers at the beginning of each shift and there were periodic staff meetings. They felt they knew people’s care and support needs and were kept informed of any changes. Senior staff used handover notes between shifts which gave them up-to-date information on people’s care needs.

People told us they had felt involved in making decisions about their care and treatment and felt listened to. They were treated with respect and dignity by the staff, and were spoken with and supported in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner. One person told us, “They respect my dignity and encourage my independence.” Peoples healthcare needs were monitored and they had access to health care professionals when they needed to.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and had a selection of choices of dishes to select from at each meal. Staff told us that an individual’s dietary requirements formed part of their pre-admission assessment and people were regularly consulted about their food preferences.

People had the opportunity to attend residents meetings, they and their representatives were asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire at the end of their stay. One person commented recently, ‘The staff are considerate and dedicated, and the catering service is good. Medication was provided on time.’We could see people were able to comment on and be involved with the service provided to influence service delivery. The registered manager told us that senior staff carried out a range of internal audits, and records we looked at confirmed this. The registered manager also told us that they operated an 'open door policy' so people living in the service, staff and visitors could discuss any issues they may have.

21 people were resident in the service at the time of our visit. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the views and experiences of these people, as not all of the people who used the service were able to tell of their experiences. We observed the care provided, looked at supporting care documentation, medication records, staff records and records relating to the management of the service. We spoke individually with the registered manager who is referred to as manager in the report, the registered mental nurse (RMN), a senior care worker, three care workers one of whom was one of the organisation’s bank staff, administrative staff, an evening cook and a domestic assistant. We spoke with six people who used the service and a visiting relative.

This told us that people were able to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People told us they felt they were well cared for by staff who understood their care needs. Comments received included " Brilliant care here,” “We had a lovely Christmas here,” “A very nice place and my mother is looked after beautifully,” “Staff always address problems,” and “Staff go over and above their duties to help.”

Infection control policies and procedures were in place to protect people. All feedback received confirmed that the service was clean.

There were sufficient numbers of staff with the right skills and qualifications to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

Systems were in place to review and monitor the quality of the care provided.

There were 23 people who used the service at the time of our inspection. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the views and experiences of these people, as not all of the people who used the service were able to tell of their experiences. We spoke with the registered manager who is referred to as manager in the report, a registered mental nurse (RMN), the duty officer, three care workers, a cook, six people who used the service, one relative and a friend. We observed care workers supporting people and looked at care/staff documentation.

This told us people had been asked for their consent for any care or treatment, and that care workers had acted in accordance with their wishes. People or their representatives had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People’s care needs had been assessed, planned, reviewed and delivered in line with their individual care plan. One person commented “I've lived in a few places and this is the best. The attitude of the management is very positive and staff are very helpful. If I have a problem I mention it to the staff and they are on it straight away. "

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the management of medicines.

Robust recruitment practices had been followed.

The records for the management of the home were accurate and complete.

We spoke to five people using the service individually who told us that they were very happy with the care, provided and that they were involved in the discussions about the care that was to be provided.

Staff members we spoke to told us that they were happy working in the home, that the team worked well together and that they had received the training and support they needed to meet individual people’s care needs.