Holly Lodge is registered for accommodation and personal care (not including nursing care) for up to 19 people who have a mental health condition. The service is based in two adjacent properties and accommodation is provided in a mix of single and shared bedrooms. There are several communal rooms and gardens to the rear of the property. A small car park for visitors and staff is found at the back of the property and can be accessed from a side street next to the service. At the time of this inspection there were 18 people who used the service.

At the last inspection on 27 January 2015 the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us they felt safe and were well cared for. The registered provider carried out recruitment checks, to ensure they employed suitable people. There were sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs and people’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff had completed relevant training. We found that they received regular supervision, to fulfil their roles effectively.

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 service supported this practice.

People said they enjoyed good food. People's health needs were identified and their independence was promoted. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals, to ensure these needs were met.

People spoken with said staff were caring and they were happy with the care they received. They had access to community facilities and most participated in the activities provided in the service.

People told us that the service was well managed and organised. The registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of care provided to people. People and staff were asked for their views and their suggestions were used to continuously improve the service.

The service met all relevant fundamental standards we inspect against.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on the 27 January 2015. The inspection was unannounced. At the last inspection the service was fully compliant with the regulations and no improvements were required.

Holly Lodge is situated in the town of Bridlington. It offers accommodation for up to 19 people who have a mental health illness over two separate properties and has a mixture of single and shared rooms. There are several communal rooms and gardens to the rear of the property. There were seventeen people living at the home on the day of our visit.

The home has a registered manager. 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 service had safeguarding vulnerable adult’s policies and procedures which were understood by staff. Staff received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and all those spoken with confirmed that they would tell someone should any aspect of poor care be observed.

Staff understood individual risks to people and worked with them to minimise these risks whilst also supporting them to remain as independent as possible.

Most people felt that there were enough staff on duty although some people said this could be improved upon particularly at weekends. Appropriate checks were completed when new staff were recruited.

People received their medication as prescribed by their GP. Medication systems were well managed.

The home was clean and free from any unpleasant odour however a programme of redecoration would enhance it further.

People told us they were able to make choices. Their likes, dislikes and personal preferences were recorded within their care records and were known and understood by staff.

Training was provided for all staff and staff could suggest courses which were of interest or which would benefit people living at the home. People living at the home were able to attend training with staff.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the MCA (Mental Capacity Act 2005) legislation which is in place for people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. The legislation is designed to ensure that any decisions are made in people’s best interests.

People told us they enjoyed the food and we saw that people could help themselves to food and drink.

People generally expressed positive comments regarding the care they received. The majority told us they were treated with kindness and compassion and we saw this throughout our visit. They told us that staff respected their privacy and maintained their dignity at all times.

People told us that the registered manager and staff responded to their needs. Each person had individual care records which focused on them as a person. They told us that social opportunities were available and said they could choose how to spend their time.

The home had not received any complaints as they dealt with any concerns immediately. The complaints procedure was displayed and people told us they could talk to staff if there was a problem.

The manager and a number of staff had been in post for a long time. They knew the service and the people they supported well.

There were a number of quality monitoring systems in place which aimed to seek the views of people. All of the relatives and health professionals we spoke with said that the manager and staff communicated well.

Staff spoke positively of the culture in place and health professionals said the service was well managed and run.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. During the day we looked around both properties, observed daily activities including lunchtime and observed interactions with staff and people who used the service. We spoke with people who used the service and staff including the manager. We reviewed documentation including three care plans.

We saw that care needs were discussed with people and where appropriate their relatives. Before people received care their consent was asked for. One person said “They talk to me about my care and what I want”.

From what people told us, what we observed, and noted as part of the review, staff cared for the people who used the service appropriately. Food and drinks were specially prepared to ensure that people had a nutritious and balanced diet. During our visit we saw that the home looked clean and tidy and there were infection control procedures in place. One person said “The food here is good” and another person said “The staff are very good, they look after me”.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. There were appropriate systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

People using the service told us that dignity and independence were promoted by staff. They told us that individual activities were organised after discussion with their key worker. One person discussed the newsletter that they published and said that the manager was supportive of their efforts.

People had been assessed in order that they accessed the local community safely, and people were seen coming and going throughout our visit. People also told us that they were able to join in with mandatory staff training such as fire training and infection control. The manager encouraged their involvement as it helped to develop their independence skills. People told us that the manager was good at his job and they could talk to him if they wanted or needed to.

Staff told us that each person had a care plan and the individual concerned had been involved in its development.

Staff were clear as to their responsibilities if someone alleged abuse was taking place.

They told us that they received regular supervision from the manager and an annual appraisal. They said that he operated an ‘open door’ policy, and staff and people using the service were seen approaching him with regularity and ease.

The environment was seen to be in need of refurbishment in some areas of the buildings and whilst there was no evidence of any risk to people the premises did not promote the wellbeing of the people living at the home.