This inspection took place on 26 September 2016 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in July 2013 the service was meeting the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Charwood provides accommodation for up to 19 older people who require personal care. On the day of our inspection there were 17 people living at the care home. We were advised that one person was in hospital at the time of our visit.

There was a registered manager in post but she was on annual leave on the day of our inspection. Therefore the inspection was undertaken with the support of the senior staff on duty. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were positive about the care they received and they told us they felt safe. People told us that staff knew them well and supported them in their preferred way. We saw that staff had developed a good rapport with people who used the service. People commented on the homely atmosphere within the home.

The staff had a clear awareness and understanding of potential abuse and knew how to protect people from the risk of harm. There was enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Risk assessments and care plans had been developed with the involvement of people. Staff had information on how to minimise identified risks to ensure people were supported in a safe way. People had equipment in place when this was needed, so that staff could assist them safely.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that staff were not aware which people had DoLS authorisations in place to ensure they worked in accordance with these. People told us that their consent was sought before staff provided their support.

Staff told us they felt supported in their role, and that they were provided with the training they needed to meet people’s needs. People were supported to access healthcare services to ensure their healthcare needs were met. People enjoyed the food that was provided and told us they were provided with sufficient quantities of food and drink.

There were warm and friendly interactions between people and staff and we observed staff talking to people respectfully. We saw that staff maintained people’s dignity.

People were happy with the support they received and with the activities that were provided. People told us they did not have any complaints but felt confident any issues they raised would be listened to and dealt with.

People and their relatives were asked for feedback about the quality of the service and any suggestions for improvements were welcomed. There was an open and transparent culture in the home, and people thought the service was well managed. A range of audits was available to monitor the safety, effectiveness and quality of the service provided.

On the day of the inspection 17 people were in residence. We spoke with three people who used the service, two care staff and the registered manager.

We found that people’s consent for care and treatment was obtained before this was delivered.

Staff had access to care plans that provided relevant information to promote their understanding of people’s care needs and how to meet them. One person who used the service said, “It’s a lovely home they can’t make you more welcome. I’m lucky to be here.”

We observed that people had access to suitable equipment to promote their independence and safety.

There were sufficient staffing levels provided at all times to ensure people’s assessed needs were met. One person who had recently moved into the home said, “I think there is enough staff on duty. I think I am going to be alright here.”

There was an effective quality assurance monitoring system in place to ensure people were not at risk of unsafe care or treatment.

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. During our inspection we spoke with three people, the relatives of two people, three members of the care staff, the deputy care manager and a visiting General Practitioner.

We found that people were involved in making care decisions. Relatives of people living at the home had confidence and "peace of mind" in the care provided by the home. We found that appropriate care was being provided to people. A visiting General Practitioner told us that they had confidence in the way in which the home cares for people. Staff were able to demonstrate good knowledge of the care plans of people, including those with specific care needs such as diabetes.

We found that the home had robust medication processes in place. We found a small number of errors in the application of these processes, but these did not have an identifiable impact on people's health. People told us that they felt safe at the home. We saw that the home was using automatic door release devices to ensure people's safety should a fire break out.

We found that the home had sufficient members of staff on duty in order to provide a good level of service to people. Staff were appropriately skilled and qualified to look after the needs of people at the home. We found that the provider gathered the opinions of people. We saw evidence that the home identified issues and put in action plans to address concerns in a timely way.

We spoke to three people who use the service and all were complimentary about the care they receive. They told us that the staff are kind, helpful and always around when you need them.

People who live there were satisfied with the variety of meals made available.

They also told us that staff do talk to them about how they would like to be cared for.