Bungay House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 18 people. There were 16 people living at the home when we visited. Accommodation is provided over two floors. All bedrooms were for single occupancy with some having ensuite facilities. There were communal areas, including lounge areas, a dining room and a large garden area for people and their guests to use whenever they wished.

At the time of this inspection 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.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure that people could be safely supported at all times. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure that people were protected from harm and would have no hesitation in reporting any concerns. People received and were administered their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the home. The provider’s recruitment process ensured that only staff, which had been deemed suitable to work with people at the home, were employed following the completion of satisfactory recruitment checks.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the registered manager and all staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS would be required. DoLS applications had been submitted to the relevant local authorities and they were waiting for these applications to be assessed.

Staff respected and maintained people’s privacy at all times. People were provided with care and support as required and people only had to wait a few minutes before having their care needs met. This meant that people’s dignity was respected and that their care needs were met in a timely manner.

People’s assessed care and support needs were planned and met by staff who had a good understanding of how and when to provide people’s care whilst respecting their independence. Care records were detailed and up to date so that staff were provided with guidelines to care for people in the right way.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals. These included appointments with a range of healthcare professionals.

People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of meals and healthy options to choose from. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks and snacks made available to people at all times.

People’s care was provided by staff in a caring, kind and compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and were supported by staff in a way which involved people to prevent them from becoming socially isolated.

The home had a complaints procedure available for people and their relatives to use and all staff were aware of the procedure. People were supported to raise concerns or complaints. Prompt action was taken to address people’s concerns and prevent any potential for recurrence.

There was an open culture within the home and people were able to talk and raise any issues with the staff. People were provided with several ways that they could comment on the quality of their care. This included regular contact with the provider, registered manager, staff and completing annual quality assurance surveys.

The provider sought the views of healthcare professionals as a way of identifying improvement. Where people suggested improvements, these had been implemented promptly and to the person’s satisfaction.

Our previous inspections of 12 September 2013 and 22 November 2013 found that the service was not compliant with the outcomes for the management of medicines and the care and welfare of people who used the service. The purpose of this inspection was to check that improvements had been made.

We saw that staff interacted with people in a respectful and professional manner. We spoke with two people who used the service who told us that they were happy living there. One person said, "It is lovely."

We looked at the care records of four people who used the service and found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We looked at the ways that the service managed medication, including medication storage and administration records of eight people who used the service. We found that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We looked at the provider's records, including provider visit reports, audits, satisfaction questionnaires and health and safety records. We saw that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

We carried out this inspection to check that improvements had been made following our last inspection on 12 September 2013.

During our inspection we spoke with two people who used the service. They told us that they were well cared for and happy.

However, the records examined did not provide sufficient or up to date detail about people's care and support. We found information missing about people's health and behavioural needs and their likes and dislikes. Action to address health issues had not been taken.

Medication records had improved but still contained errors in the way in which medication that was refused or not needed was recorded.

This was the first inspection of this service since it was re registered under the ownership of a new limited complany earlier this year. Althoufgh procedures and staffing had not changed, we did not consider anything that related to the previous registration.

During our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service. They told us that they were happy with the care and support they received.They told us that their care and treatment was very good. One person said, "It's the best ever." They told us that staff helped them with day to day tasks like, "Getting washed and dressed." Another person said. "It's really good here."

We looked at the electronic care records used to guide staff in providing care and support. These were detailed but did not show how people’s likes and dislikes were considered when supporting them. We looked at medication records and found there were some errors and omissions which meant that we could not be certain medication was being safely managed or administered.

Staff records showed that suitable recruitment processes were being followed to ensure that staff were suited to their role.

People who used the service were supported in making their concerns known and in making a formal complaint if this was necessary.