What life is like for people using this service: The property was comfortable and spacious with plenty of room for people to live. Everyone had their own room with en-suite facilities. The service had a garden area where people could spend time in good weather.

People told us they felt safe and happy and the service was their home.

There were ineffective measures in place at the home to ensure the risk of infection and cross contamination was prevented and/or minimised. The building, furniture and environment was not always clean and well maintained. Although these risks were mitigated following our inspection, this meant the provider had not always managed the risks associated with people living at the home. There were quality assurance systems in place to assist the provider to monitor and improve its care and treatment of people. However, the provider did not always take the immediate and appropriate action to implement changes at the home, when improvements were identified.

There were safeguarding systems and processes in places that sought to protect people from harm. Staff knew the signs of abuse and what to do if they suspected it. There were sufficient staff in place, all of whom had passed safe recruitment procedures to ensure they were suitable for the role. There were systems in place to monitor people's safety and promote their health and wellbeing, these included personal risk assessments and care plans. The provider ensured that when things went wrong, incidents and accidents were recorded and lesson were learned.

People needs were assessed before moving to the home so the provider knew whether they could meet the person's needs. Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to fulfil their roles, received training and were supported through regular performance reviews. People were prompted to eat and drink healthily and could choose what foods they wanted to eat. People were supported to have choice in their daily lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People were treated kindly and compassionately by staff. People and their relatives were supported to express their views and make decisions about the care and treatment they received. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.

People received personalised care, having their support needs and preferences detailed in their care plans. People were supported to lead fulfilled lives through activities of their choice. The provider had a complaints policy and process in place; people and their relatives told us they would feel comfortable raising complaints. When people were at the end of their life, the provider worked with them to meet their wishes and preferences.

People and staff thought highly of the registered manager and that the service was well managed. Staff knew their roles and understood what was expected of them. The registered manager knew their responsibilities in ensuring people received a safe, high quality service. People and staff were engaged in the service and their opinions were sought.

At this inspection we found the evidence did not continue to support a rating of ‘Good’ in all areas, we have rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ in Safe and Well Led. More information is available in our 'Detailed Findings' below.

Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection in March 2016 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. However, this rating was awarded to the previous provider. A new provider had taken over the service in July 2018.

About the service: Cliffdale Rest Home is a residential care home that provides personal care for up to 27 people. At the time of the inspection 21 people lived at the home.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as

The inspection took place on 6 May 2016 and was unannounced.

The provider of Cliffdale Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 27 people. At the time of this inspection there were 18 people living at the service.

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.

People were kept safe because the registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities to identify and report potential harm and abuse. Risks to people's health and wellbeing were known by staff and well managed. The registered manager and staff maintained close links with external healthcare professionals to promote people's health.

People were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff. The registered manager reviewed people's individual requirements and ensured staffing levels were suitable to meet their needs. The registered manager made all the appropriate checks on new staff's suitability to work at the service. People's medicines were managed, stored and administered by staff who had received the correct training to promote safe practices. Staff understood how to care for people because they received a good induction where they shadowed experienced staff until they knew people well.

People were offered meals which were met their preferences and provided a choice of different meals. People were supported to eat and drink enough by staff who understood the importance of a balanced diet.

People were cared for by staff who knew them well and who they described as kind and caring. We saw very positive interactions between people and staff which respected people's dignity and privacy. Staff responded to people's individual likes and dislikes and supported people to follow their own interests.

People knew how to raise any concerns and who they should report any concerns to. The registered manager was proactive in maintaining communication with people and their relatives so that any concerns were discussed and action taken straight away.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and had developed systems to monitor the quality of the service people received. The registered manager was continually looking at how they provided care for people and how this could be improved. In doing so they showed that they valued people's views about the services provided and used these to improve and further develop the services provided for people.

We talked with people who lived in the home and they said that they were well looked after. They said the staff always asked them how they would like things to be done. They said staff were always mindful of their privacy and treated them with respect.

People told us that they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, “I’m very satisfied” and another said “I couldn’t be better cared for”.

We visited the home unannounced on the 2 August 2012. There were 23 people living at Cliffdale. We spoke with the registered manager, five staff, two visitors to the home and eight people who live at the home.

People told us that they were satisfied with the service provided at the home. People said that the staff were very nice and looked after them well.

People said that they were supported by staff to see medical and healthcare professionals promptly whenever necessary.

Staff were observed to be courteous and respectful towards people and worked hard to meet people’s needs.

People were seen as individuals and their lifestyle choices and values respected.

Care records were well kept and contained up to date information about people’s needs but there was no written evidence that people were involved in decision making about their care.

Systems were in place to make sure that people were kept safe at the home.

There was no ongoing redecoration and refurbishment programme. Several areas of the home and garden were in poor condition and did not offer a comfortable environment for people who used the service. This had also impacted on the risk of cross infection as equipment had not been replaced.

Recruitment processes were in place to make sure that staff were suitable to work at the home.

The home actively sought the views of people who lived, worked and visited the home but there was no written evidence that issues raised or suggestions made were acted on.