The inspection took place on 18 July 2017 and was unannounced. Cherry Leas is a care home providing care and accommodation for up to 16 older people who may also be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people who lived in the service.

The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 appeared happy and relaxed with staff. There were sufficient staff to support them. When staff were recruited, their employment history was checked, references obtained and comprehensive induction completed. Checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector.

Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding and knew what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place. Appropriate training was provided to ensure staff were confident to meet people's support needs.

It was evident staff and the registered manager had spent considerable time with people, getting to know them, gaining an understanding of their personal history and building rapport with them. People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met.

People's needs had been assessed and detailed care plans developed. Care plans contained risk assessments for a wide range of daily living needs. For example, nutrition, falls, and skin pressure areas. People consistently received the care they required, and staff members were clear on people's individual needs.

Care was provided with kindness and compassion. Staff members were responsive to people's changing needs. People's health and wellbeing was carefully monitored and staff regularly liaised with healthcare professionals for advice and guidance.

Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make specific decisions the service was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where appropriate 'best interests' meetings had been instigated and outcomes recorded.

People were provided with opportunities to take part in activities 'in-house' and to access the local and wider community. People were supported to take an active role in decision making regarding their own daily routines and the general flow of their home.

Staff had a clear understanding of the vision and philosophy of the home and they spoke positively about their work and the management. The provider had established systems in place and the registered manager undertook regular quality assurance reviews to monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.

This was an unannounced inspection. Cherry Leas provides care and accommodation for up to 16 older people including those living with dementia. The service is situated in a residential area of Clacton near the seafront. There were 13 people living in the service when we visited.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 who lived at the home, relatives and staff told us people were safe. There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. These included comprehensive staff recruitment and training practices. Procedures were in place to effectively protect people against risks of abuse.

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place. Records we looked at confirmed that staff were only employed within the home after all essential safety checks had been satisfactorily completed.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. We saw that staff had followed guidance and were knowledgeable about submitting applications to the appropriate external agencies. Records viewed showed us that where people lacked the capacity to make decisions they were supported to make decisions that were in their best interests. People were only deprived of their liberty where this was lawful and there was no one subject to a DoLs at the time of our inspection.

There was a process in place to ensure that people’s health care needs were assessed. This helped ensure that care was planned and delivered to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. Staff knew people’s needs well and how to meet these. People were provided with sufficient quantities to eat and drink.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. Staff were seen to knock on the person’s bedroom door and waiting for a response before entering and by using suitable means to protect people’s dignity when providing personal care.

Care records we viewed showed us that wherever possible people were offered a variety of chosen social activities and interests. People were supported in a way that helped prevent social isolation for them.

The provider had an effective complaints process in place which was accessible to people, relatives and others who used or visited the service.

Checks had been completed for things such as lifting equipment and gas and electrical safety in the home. This ensured that the home was a safe place for people, staff and visitors.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement and appropriate action to address any identified concerns. Audits, completed by the provider and registered manager and subsequent actions taken, helped drive improvements in the service.

During our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service. We talked with three members of staff. The detailed evidence that supports our findings can be read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff had received a range of training to protect people from harm. Safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse (SOVA), Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training were completed every year. Staff we spoke with told us that they were aware of the action they would take if they suspected abuse was or had taken place. They were also aware of what it meant to deprive someone of their liberty and why this was sometimes necessary.

We found that the service had suitable arrangements in place to gain people's consent to and assess people's mental capacity to make decisions should they not be able to consent to their care.

The policy, procedures and quality monitoring of the service included health and safety and reviews of care planning and delivery. This system was comprehensive and ensured people lived in a safe environment with safe care.

Is the service effective?

People were satisfied with the care and support they received. This was consistent with the positive feedback received from people as reported in the provider's own quality assurance survey. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about individual people's care needs, and this knowledge was consistent with the care plans in place.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, “I never feel rushed by the staff that help me, they don’t do everything for me and help me to do things for myself." We spoke with three people who used the service. One person said to us, "I am very happy here. Everyone is very kind." Another person said, "The staff are very helpful and this is a beautiful place to live." We observed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were appropriate, respectful and friendly and there was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the home.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that care plans and risk assessments were informative, up to date and regularly reviewed. The registered manager responded in an open, thorough and timely manner to complaints. This meant that people could be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary. Staff told us the manager was approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the home.

Is the service well led?

Staff said that they felt well supported by the manager, there was a positive sense of the team working together and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff.

We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by talking with people. We saw how they spent their time and noted how they interacted with other people living in the home and with staff. We spoke generally with some people who told us they were happy and we noted that people chatted with staff in a relaxed and friendly manner.

We saw that staff were knowledgeable about the needs of people living in the home, treated them with respect and provided care in ways that people preferred and that met their needs.

During our inspection we saw that people received good care. Relatives who had sent letters and cards of thanks to the home spoke about their gratitude for the good care provided.

People were happy with the quality of the home cooked food and we saw that there was a relaxed and sociable atmosphere when people were having lunch.

We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by talking with people, observing how they spent their time and noting how they interacted with other people living in the home and with staff.

During our visit we spoke with people who told us they liked living at Cherry Leas. We saw that people smiled and appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff and others living in the home.

During our inspection we saw that people received good care. A relative spoken with was also complimentary about the standard of care their relative received.

One person living in the home told us they liked the food at Cherry Leas and someone else said the home was lovely.