Cassandra House provides care and accommodation for up to 43 older people some of whom have a dementia related condition. Accommodation is split over two levels with lift access to the first floor. There are four communal lounges, a dining room and a conservatory for people to use. There is an enclosed courtyard garden that enables people to safely access outdoor space whenever they wish. There were 38 people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

We last inspected the service in July 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected. The local authority safeguarding team informed us that were no on-going organisational safeguarding matters regarding the service.

The premises were clean. Maintenance and servicing had been completed to ensure that the premises and equipment were safe. Medicines were managed safely.

Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Records confirmed that training was available to ensure staff were suitably skilled. Staff were supported though a supervision system.

People's nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare services when required.

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.

We observed positive interactions between staff, people who lived at the service and their relatives. Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity.

Care plans were in place which detailed the individual care and support to be provided for people. Arrangements for social activities met people’s individual needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place. Nine complaints had been received since our last inspection which had all been responded to in line with the service policy and procedures.

Audits were carried out to monitor all aspects of the service. Action plans had not always been developed but the manager highlighted to us any areas which required improvement and told us about their plans for improvement, which we could see were already underway. Staff were very positive about working for the provider who was also the registered manager and the deputy manager. They said they felt valued and enjoyed working at the service. We observed that they applied this positivity in their roles when supporting people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Cassandra House provides care and accommodation for up to 43 older people some of whom have a dementia related condition. Accommodation is split over two levels with lift access to the first floor. There are four communal lounges, a dining room and a conservatory for people to use. There is an enclosed courtyard garden that enables people to safely access outdoor space whenever they wish. There were 38 people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

We last inspected the service in July 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected. The local authority safeguarding team informed us that were no on-going organisational safeguarding matters regarding the service.

The premises were clean. Maintenance and servicing had been completed to ensure that the premises and equipment were safe. Medicines were managed safely.

Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Records confirmed that training was available to ensure staff were suitably skilled. Staff were supported though a supervision system.

People's nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare services when required.

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.

We observed positive interactions between staff, people who lived at the service and their relatives. Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity.

Care plans were in place which detailed the individual care and support to be provided for people. Arrangements for social activities met people’s individual needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place. Nine complaints had been received since our last inspection which had all been responded to in line with the service policy and procedures.

Audits were carried out to monitor all aspects of the service. Action plans had not always been developed but the manager highlighted to us any areas which required improvement and told us about their plans for improvement, which we could see were already underway. Staff were very positive about working for the provider who was also the registered manager and the deputy manager. They said they felt valued and enjoyed working at the service. We observed that they applied this positivity in their roles when supporting people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We spoke with two people who lived at the home on a one to one basis and chatted to others. We also spoke with the manager, the deputy manager and members of staff, including the cook.

People told us that they received the support they needed and that staff were “Friendly” and “Helpful”. Care plans reflected the care and support needs of the person concerned and were updated regularly to make sure that staff had current information to work with.

Each person's nutritional needs had been met and people told us they enjoyed the meals at the home and that they received a choice of meals.

Staff were employed following safe recruitment and selection processes and they then received appropriate training that equipped them to carry out their role. Staff told us that they were well supported by managers.

Quality monitoring systems had been introduced to measure the quality of the service provided and to give people who lived at the home and others the opportunity to comment on the care they received and express their views.

At the last inspection of the home in November 2012 we found non compliance with three outcomes. A satisfactory action plan was received from the provider to address these shortfalls.

On this occasion we did not speak with people who lived at the home. We spoke with them at the last inspection and they did not express any concerns about the care they received. We observed that appropriate care was being provided by staff.

At this inspection we found that care plans had been kept up to date so staff had the information they needed to ensure they could provide the care that people needed. Care plans were being developed in a timely manner for people who were admitted to the home.

Action had been taken to ensure that staff had updated their knowledge on safeguarding adults from abuse pending attendance at training courses booked during 2013.

Training records had been updated and some refresher training had taken place since the last inspection. Training had also been booked for staff during 2013. Further work needed to take place to evidence that staff had undertaken all of the training they needed to keep their practice up to date.

We spoke with three people who lived at the home and three members of staff to help us in reaching a judgement about the care provided at the home. People who lived at the home told us that staff were good. Two people told us that “staff had the right attitude and were patient”.

We saw that people were encouraged to make day to day decisions for themselves. They were supported to make appropriate decisions when they were not able to do this for themselves. People's individual lifestyles were promoted.

We saw that the home was maintained in a clean and hygienic condition and that there were appropriate policies and procedures in place to promote the prevention of infection. People who lived at the home told us that it was always clean. One person said, “The beds are always lovely and clean” and another said, “Staff clean my room nearly every day”.

However, we were concerned that important information had not always been recorded in a person's care plan to ensure that staff had up to date information about their care needs and that some information about a person's care provision had not been recorded.

There were training opportunities available for staff but records were out of date and there was a lack of evidence about which staff had attended which training course. Records available on the day of the inspection showed that some staff had not received training for a number of years.

We spoke to some of the people who lived at the home. They told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity and that they were able to make decisions about their day to day lives.

People told us that staff spoke to them politely and that they felt comfortable when care workers were assisting them with personal care. They said that they felt safe living at the home.

People told us that the food at the home was good and that there was a choice available on most days.

They told us that the care workers were pleasant and kind and that they were well looked after. One person said, “The staff can’t do enough” and another said that they now viewed Cassandra House as their home.