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

Cornwallis Court provides nursing and residential care for up to 74 older Freemasons and their dependants. The service is split into three units; residential, nursing and Geoffrey Dicker House. Geoffrey Dicker House is a separate building, which is part of Cornwallis Court and is specifically for people living with dementia.

Cornwallis Court was recently registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 June 2017. The change in registration was the result of changes within the provider’s organisation. There had been a consolidation process amongst all of the charitable arms of the Masonic Foundation and all the social care services now come under the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution Care Company. The Nominated Individual remains the same.

Under the service’s previous registration, there was an incident where a person fell on an exposed heating pipe and sustained burns. This incident is subject to an investigation and as a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident.

This is the first comprehensive inspection under this registration and as such, they have not yet received a CQC rating.

There were 70 people living in the service when we inspected on 17 and 19 January 2018. This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection.

The service did not have a registered manager, the previous manager left in June 2017. However, there was an appointed manager who has been in post since 8 January 2018, nine days before this inspection. While a new manager was being sought the service was managed by the deputy manager who was supported by a registered manager of a sister service. The manager told us that they were in the process of applying for 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.

The people who lived in the service told us that they felt safe and well cared for. There were systems in place that provided guidance for staff on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. There were processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments, which identified how risks to people were minimised. There were sufficient numbers of trained and well-supported staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely, following best practice guidelines.

Both the manager and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager knew how to make a referral if required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.

We saw many examples of positive and caring interactions between the staff and people living in the service. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. The service liste