The last inspection of this home was carried out on 21 August 2014. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

This inspection took place over two days. The first visit on 2 August 2016 was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. Another visit was made on 3 August July 2016.

Cheviot Court is a purpose-built care home which provides personal care for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. It is registered to provide up to 73 places. At the time of this visit there were 72 people living at the home, and another person moved in during the inspection.

The home had a registered manager who had been in this role for five years. 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.

During this inspection we found a small number of care plans did not include some important details about their needs. This meant people might not receive the right support in a consistent way. We found the organisation's quality checks had already identified this as an issue and action was being taken to address this. We have made a recommendation about this.

People told us they felt safe and comfortable living at Cheviot Court. One person said, “Its nice place. We’re well-looked after.” Relatives also felt people were safe at the home. One relative told us, “It’s absolutely safe here. It’s peace of mind for us that she’s cared for here.”

Staff had regular training in safeguarding adults and knew how to report any concerns. A local authority commissioner told us, “We do not have any concerns with Cheviot Court.”

Risks to people’s safety and health, such as falls, were appropriately assessed and managed. The premises were safe, comfortable and well maintained. Staff were trained in how to help people evacuate the building in the event of an emergency.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The provider carried out checks to make sure only suitable staff were employed. Staff assisted people with their medicines in a safe way.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt well cared for in the home. People and relatives felt staff did a “good job”. Staff told us they had good training, supervision and support. Staff said they enjoyed their jobs and were encouraged to develop their careers.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to make sure they were not restricted unnecessarily.

People were complimentary about the quality of the food. Their comments included “The food is very good” and “we’re well-fed”. Relatives said people were supported to eat and drink enough. A relative told us, “Since moving in my family member has started to eat really well and nutritiously, and their health is better because of it.” Any changes in people’s health were referred to the relevant health care agencies.

People had positive comments about how they were cared for. Their comments included, “Staff are canny” and “the staff are friendly”. One person told us, “It’s a nice place.” A relative commented, “The staff are really nice and very helpful.” Another relative said, “The staff seem caring.”

People were addressed by the name that they preferred and staff were familiar with each person’s preferences. We saw people’s personal appearance was respected. People were well groomed and their clothes were clean. One relative commented, “They always keep my [family member] lovely and clean.”

Relatives felt staff knew each person well. For example, one relative told us, “They understand my family member’s individual quirks.” In discussions staff were very knowledgeable about people’s indiv

What People Told Us and What We Found

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives and the staff supporting them, and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Before anyone received care from the service, pre-admission information was obtained and assessments of people’s individual needs took place. This meant the staff knew how to care for the people who used the service.

Staff had completed their mandatory training, which included safeguarding, health and safety, food safety, infection control and control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH).

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We discussed DoLS with the manager, who told us that applications had been submitted and that she had considered the impact of the recent supreme court decision about how to judge whether a person might be deprived of their liberty. We saw records of these applications in people’s care records and also saw that notifications of the applications had been submitted to the CQC. We also saw records of mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions.

Is the service effective?

Each person had an individual care plan which set out their specific care needs and people had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Relatives we spoke with told us they were also involved in the planning of care.

We saw that support plans and risk assessments were up to date and reflected people’s individual needs and we observed staff supporting people in a caring and sensitive way.

One person told us about the staff, “They are kind, they do anything.”

Is the service caring?

People were supported by suitably trained staff and we saw that care records were accurate and up to date. The assessment, planning and delivery of care and support was centred on the individual and considered all aspects of their individual circumstances.

We saw staff supported people in a caring and sensitive way and encouraged people to be independent.

People we spoke with told us they were happy living at Cheviot Court. People and their family members told us, “It’s lovely”, “we are well looked after”, “the food is good”, “full marks” and “I’m taken care of night and day.”

Is the service responsive?

People were asked for their views on a regular basis. Family members told us they received surveys and people attended meetings at the service.

Records showed that people’s needs had been taken into account and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

People had access to a range of specialists and health professionals to ensure they received appropriate care.

Is the service well-led?

The provider gathered information about the safety and quality of their service from a variety of sources. The provider and manager carried out regular audits and the manager carried out regular out of hours spot checks.

Staff we spoke with during our visit confirmed that they had regular supervisions and appraisals and felt that they had received enough training to carry out their role.

Some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us their views because of this we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences.

The people living at the home told us they were happy with the service provided by staff. One person said the staff were “nice”. Another person told us the staff made them “nice cups of tea” and then gave a member of staff a kiss on the cheek and a hug.

We spoke with two relatives of people who lived at the care home. One relative said the care home was “lovely, really nice” and there was a good consistency of staff. The other relative said the “care was fine” and staff knew how to encourage their relative to have their hair styled by the hairdresser. We also spoke to a visiting healthcare professional who said the care home was “brilliant”, every care worker they had contact with knew about the patients’ needs and there was good communication in the care home between staff.

We found that people were given care and support which met their needs. People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

The provider had a system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service. The provider had a complaints system available.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

Those people living in the home we spoke with, said that they were happy with the service provided by the staff. One person told us that they had “No problems” and that they “Look after me well”. another said that “The staff are lovely”.

One visiting relative asked specifically to speak to us and told us that they were very confident that their family member was being looked after. She told us that she wanted to make sure that an advocate for the people living in the service spoke up about “The fantastic care” and that her relative could not do this herself. She told us that the care was “Second to none” and that she “Wouldn’t have a word said against the home”. Another visitor, when asked about the care being given to their relative, said “She has been here for a short time but she has settled realy well” and that she found the staff to be helpful and “Would go out of their way” to make sure her relative was comfortable. Both confirmed they had been involved in developing the care plan and were happy with the content of the document.

We spoke with a small group of people who were sitting in the lounge. They told us that they were very happy with the service and told us about how much they appreciated the staff and the managers. They told us that the meals were “Usually really nice” but there have been some changes and they seemed to be trying different things”. One person said that they had not liked the meal from the previous day (burger in a bun) but that the staff had told the cook and that they were confident that it had been listened too. A visitor told us that her relative was “Always happy” with the food and had increased their weight since admission.

This visit focused on checking whether shortfalls identified at our last review in June 2011 had been addressed, to ensure that people using the service were now safe and fully cared for. The home had been under new ownership since October 2011. The manager of the service had remained in post and was already registered with us.

As we walked around the premises we met with people on each floor of the service and with several visiting relatives. Those who we chatted to told us they were fine and had everything they needed.

Comments included, “I do what I want to do. I have a lie in if I want to”; “I’m independent, and I can go out if I want to”; “The home’s run easily and the staff are all very helpful”; “Everyone’s lovely. I even get an occasional cuddle from the girls”; “The staff make my relative feel important, and they always have time for her”; “I’ve got no worries – no problems at all”; "No worries or concerns about the home”; and, “I would tell the staff if I wasn’t happy”.

In relation to staffing levels and the provision of social activities comments included, “Staff never take me out”; “I am bored”; “Sometimes staff knock at about 7.30, saying, ‘Breakfast time!’”; “All of the staff are very good but they are always very busy”; and, “My only concern is the lack of activities and things to keep people occupied and stimulated on the dementia care unit”.