The inspection took place on 10 April, 2018 and was unannounced, which meant that nobody at the service knew we would be visiting. The last comprehensive inspection took place in July 2015 when the registered provider was meeting the regulations. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Buckingham Care Home’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Buckingham care home 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.

Buckingham Care Home is located in Penistone and has access to the local amenities. The home has 72 bedrooms with en-suite facilities on four residential units, across two floors, including ‘Memory Lane’ designed for people living with dementia. Some of the bedrooms have direct access to the garden and patio. Within the home there are four lounges, four dining rooms and a café. There is a car park to the front of the property.

At the time of our inspection the service had a registered manager. 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 were safeguarded from the risks of abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about identifying abuse, recording and reporting it. Risks associated with people’s care had been identified and staff knew how to manage risks. However, documentation did not always evidence the risks and action staff should take to minimise them. We observed staff interacting with people and found there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely way. Medication systems were in place, however, protocols in place to manage medicines prescribed on an ‘as and when’ required basis lacked detail. Documentation also needed to evidence that topical creams were being applied as prescribed. Accidents and incidents were monitored on a monthly basis showing a clear audit trail.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. This was because the management team were aware of who had an authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards or if any conditions were attached. Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation. Best interest decisions were considered but were not always documented.

Staff received training on a regular basis both face to face and online. Staff were knowledgeable about their role. People received a nutritious diet, although documentation for recording this could be improved. People had access to healthcare professionals and staff adhered to their advice.

We observed staff interacting well with people and were kind and considerate. People’s privacy and dignity were respected.

People received personalised care and staff were aware of people’s needs and preferences. However, this was not always detailed in care records. A range of activities took place but did not always involve everyone. People felt able to raise concerns and complaints were listened to. The registered provider learned lessons from complaints received and took appropriate actions.

Audits were in place to ensure policy and procedures were followed. Audits mainly identified areas of development and these were actioned. However, audits could be more detailed to ensure all outstanding issues are identified. There was evidence that people had a voice and were given opportunities to be involved in the home.

We carried out this inspection on 06 July 2015 and it was an unannounced inspection. This means the provider did not know we were going to carry out the inspection. At the last full inspection at Buckingham Care Home, we found the home to be fully compliant with the regulations inspected at that time.

Buckingham Care Home is located in Penistone and has access to the local amenities. The home has 72 bedrooms with en-suite facilities on four residential units, across two floors, including ‘Memory Lane’; the dementia unit on the ground floor of the home. Some of the bedrooms have direct access to the garden and patio. Within the home there are four lounges, 4 dining rooms and a café. There is a car park to the front of the property. On the day of our inspection, there were 58 older people living at the home, some living with dementia.

It is a condition of registration with the Care Quality Commission that the home has a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run. The registered manager was present on the day of our inspection.

People and their relatives told us they felt the home was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. Comments included; “I feel safe [at the home]”, “My daughter comes nearly every day so she sorts out anything that needs doing or if I had any concerns”, “The staff are nice. We’re like a family” and “We have regular residents meetings. I’ve attended a few and we give feedback on [the home]”.

People were protected from abuse and the home followed adequate and effective safeguarding procedures. Care records were personalised and contained relevant information for staff to provide person-centred care and support.

Staff were well supported, received regular supervisions and were given regular training updates. There were additional non-statutory training course available that staff could sign up for if they wished.

We found good practice in relation to decision making processes at the home, in line with the Mental Capacity code of practice, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

There were good, regular quality-monitoring systems carried out at the home. We saw that, where issues had been identified, the registered manager had taken (or were taking) steps to address and resolve them. Audits and checks had been signed off when completed and action plans had been developed.