This inspection site visit took place on 6 February 2018 and was unannounced. This was a comprehensive inspection.

Compton Manor is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care home provides residential care to older people, including people who live with dementia. The home has two floors accommodating up to 38 people in one adapted building. On the day of our visit 35 people lived at the home, including two people on a short stay. One person was in hospital. The home is located in Coventry in the West Midlands.

At our last inspection in January 2016 we rated the home Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good overall. However, improvement was required to some of the provider’s systems and processes for monitoring the quality of the service.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the home has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager at the home who had been in post since September 2017. 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.

The providers systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided were not consistently followed and some audits were not effective. Despite this, people, relatives and staff felt the registered manager was approachable and the home was well-led. The registered manager was developing their knowledge and understanding of their management responsibilities and regulatory requirements.

People told us they felt safe living at Compton Manor. Staff understood how to protect people from harm, and provided good support to reduce identified risks. Medicines were managed safely. Information in care records ensured staff had the detail needed to ensure care and support was provided in line with people’s needs and preferences.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care, and people decided how they wanted to live their lives on a day to day basis.

People enjoyed their meals and the varied range of choices available to them. They were supported to access healthcare professionals when needed. Staff respected people’s privacy and promoted their dignity by supporting people to be independent. People and relatives spoke highly of staff who they felt were helpful, kind and generous.

People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them. Family and friends were welcomed to visit the home at any time. A range of meaningful activities were available which people could choose to take part in. People were supported to follow individual interests and hobbies.

People, relatives and professional visitors were complimentary about the quality of care provided and were invited to share their views about the home to drive forward improvement. Complaints were managed in line with the provider’s procedure.

Staff enjoyed working at the home and felt supported and valued by the management team. Action was being taken to make improvements to the home’s environment.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 12 January 2016 and was unannounced.

Compton Manor is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for a maximum of 38 older people. The home is located in Coventry in the West Midlands. There were 27 people living at the home at the time of our visit. A number of people were living with dementia.

The service had a registered manager. This is a requirement of the provider’s registration. 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. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.

People told us they felt safe at the home, and staff treated them well. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse, and were clear about their responsibilities to report any incidents to the manager. The provider had effective recruitment procedures that helped protect people, because staff were recruited that were of good character to work with people in the home.

There were enough staff at Compton Manor to support people safely. Staffing levels enabled people to have the support they needed to take part in interests and hobbies that met their individual needs and wishes. People who lived at the home were encouraged to maintain links with friends and family who could visit the home at any time.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager had made DoLS applications when any potential restrictions on a person’s liberty had been identified. People were able to make everyday decisions themselves, including how they spent their time and the activities they might enjoy, which helped them to maintain their independence.

People were supported to attend health care appointments with health care professionals when they needed to, and received healthcare that supported them to maintain their wellbeing. There were processes in place to ensure people received their prescribed medicines in a safe manner.

All of the care records we looked at were up to date and described people’s routines and how they preferred their care and support to be provided by staff. People and their relatives were involved in planning, and reviewing how they were cared for and supported. Risk to people’s health and welfare were assessed and care plans gave staff instruction on how to reduce identified risks. Staff had a good knowledge of the people they were caring for. People and their relatives thought staff were caring and responsive to people’s needs.

Staff said they were supported and listened to by the management team. Staff received the training necessary to give them the skills they needed to meet the needs of people they cared for. Staff reassured and encouraged people in a way that respected their dignity and promoted their independence. People were given privacy when they needed it.

People and relative’s told us they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. However, no-one had made a complaint regarding the home

The provider had established procedures to check the quality and safety of care people received, and to identify where areas needed to be improved. People and relatives were encouraged to develop the service by providing feedback about the quality of the service they received and how the home was run. The manager gathered feedback from people, their relatives and staff through meetings or quality assurance questionnaires. Improvements were made in response to people’s suggestions.

People, relatives and staff felt the management team were approachable. The manager maintained an open culture at the home and was committed to continually improving the service provided. The

When we visited Compton Manor Residential Care Home we found there were 31 people living at the home. There was a mixture of people who lived there permanently and people who lived at the home for respite care. Respite care is short term support to help people recover from ill health. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, two team leaders, a care assistant, the head of domestic staff, the cook and eight people who used the service including people’s relatives. Speaking with these people helped answer our five questions; Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

We found people’s care records had been regularly reviewed by a member of staff. We saw people’s care records reflected their care needs.

We saw people had risk assessments in place that made sure risks to their health and wellbeing were managed.

We looked at staff records and found the provider’s recruitment practice was safe and thorough.

People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We were told nobody who lived at the home was under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard.

Is the service effective?

People told us the care they received met their needs. When talking about the staff people told us they were, “Good”, “Supportive” and “Helpful.”

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported and what they told us was reflected in people’s care plans.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with eight people who used the service and they were all positive about the staff who supported them. One person told us the staff were, “Nice and sociable.”

Staff we spoke with were positive about their role as care workers.

Is the service responsive?

We found people were asked for their views about their care and these were acted on. We saw the provider had sent out an annual relatives and resident’s satisfaction survey in 2013. The results we saw from the survey were positive.

We saw incidents and accidents had been responded to and actions had been taken to make improvements following investigations.

People’s needs and abilities were assessed before they moved into the home. The care plans we looked were regularly reviewed and changed as people’s needs changed. We found staff supported people to see other health professionals, such as doctors, dentists and opticians when they needed to.

Is the service well led?

We found the service had an effective quality assurance system in place and any identified actions had led to improvements in the service people received.

People who used the service told us they were able to speak with the manager and felt able to raise any issues or concerns they had.

We found evidence improvements had been made to the service following investigation of concerns.

We visited unannounced and spoke with four care staff, the manager, the deputy and two visiting professionals. We also spoke with two visiting relatives and five people who lived at the home. People in the home and relatives who visited were very complimentary about the home. People told us “The staff are very good” and “It’s very nice here – everyone is so friendly.”

Staff we spoke with were very positive about working at the home. Most staff had worked at the home for several years. Staff showed a good knowledge of the needs of people in the home.

We observed interactions in the home and looked at a sample of care records. We saw staff were attentive to the needs of people in the home, consulted them and explained what was happening. We frequently heard staff ask questions such as “Where would you like to sit now?” “Can you move your legs?” and “You look a bit stiff – are you alright? “. We saw that staff enjoyed a good rapport with people who lived at the home. In many instances, staff had worked with some people for several years.

The wide range of food at mealtimes showed that the home provided choice and responded to individual preferences.