This unannounced inspection took place on the 12 October 2016. Copper Beech Care Home provides accommodation for up to 48 people who require nursing or personal care. There were 38 people in residence during this inspection.

There was 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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

People were safeguarded from harm as the provider had systems in place to prevent, recognise and report concerns to the relevant authorities. Senior staff and nurses knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied that knowledge appropriately.

There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person. Recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the role.

People’s care and support needs were continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that care was

provided in the way that they needed. People had been involved in planning and reviewing their care when they wanted to.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being and ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when required.

Staff understood the importance of obtaining people’s consent when supporting them with their daily living needs. People experienced caring relationships with staff, who provided good interaction by taking the time to listen and understand what people needed.

People’s needs were met in line with their individual care plans and assessed needs. Staff took time to get to know people and ensured that people’s care was tailored to their individual needs.

People had the information they needed to make a complaint and the service had processes in place to respond to any complaints.

People were supported by a team of staff that had the managerial guidance and support they needed to carry out their roles. The quality of the service was monitored by the audits regularly carried out by the manager and by the provider.

We spoke with five people and four relatives who told us that people were treated as individuals and that they were given information and choices in relation to their care. One person said that ‘communication is good and we always feel included’. Another said ‘The staff always ask me what I want and are led by me in my care’. People, who could, told us that their dignity, independence and privacy was respected. This was confirmed by our review of people's records as well as our observations. A visitor told us ‘the staff seem very well trained’.

We spoke with four members of staff who told us they feel confident in their role. They said that they have regular training and feel very supported by the manager. During our observation we saw that staff interacted well with people when they were supporting them.

We were shown examples of person centred care records which were well organised into separate sections. This provided clarity for staff. These had been developed for each individual and documented their wishes and preferences in relation to how their care was provided. A relative's assistance was sought with this where the person was unable to fully contribute themselves.

Equality and diversity had been considered in the service by looking at each individual's needs. Any equipment or adaptations needed were provided.

As part of this inspection we spoke with three people who lived at the home and used an observational tool to help us to understand the experience of those that could not give their views. We also spoke with visitors of four people and a range of staff.

We found that people’s privacy, dignity and independence had been respected. People who lived at the home and their relative's views and experiences had been taken into account and people received their care in the way they preferred.

People's needs had been met. People's needs had been assessed and kept under review. Health care professional's advice and support had been obtained when needed.

One visitor told us they were "Intensely impressed with the management of the home and the balance between the high standard of clinical care and the relaxed friendly atmosphere".

One person who lived there told us “it’s very amenable living here.” Another summed up their experience as “100% everything".

People felt safe and secure. Staff had received training in the protection of safeguarding adults at risk and were aware of how to raise an alert if they suspected abuse had taken place.

Staff had received the training and support they needed to undertake their role and meet the diverse needs of the people who lived there.

We found that the home had regularly assessed and monitored the quality of service that people received. They had identified, assessed and managed any risks to health, safety and welfare.