The inspection took place on 7 February 2017 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in 2015 we had concerns that some of the systems in place to monitor the quality of service were not effective. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

Holly Lodge Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 older people. At the time of the inspection there were eight people using 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 being safeguarded from abuse as staff and the management followed the local safeguarding procedures if they suspected someone had suffered potential abuse.

Risks of harm to people were assessed and action was taken to minimise the risks. People had plans in place and the equipment they needed to keep them safe.

There were sufficient suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet their needs in a timely manner. Staff had been recruited using safe recruitment procedures to ensure that were of good character and fit to work with people who used the service.

People's medicines were stored and administered safely by trained staff.

The principles of The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 were being followed as the provider was ensuring that people were consenting to or when they lacked mental capacity, were being supported to consent to their care.

Staff told us and we saw they had received training and were supported to be effective in their roles.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People were referred to other health care agencies for support and advice if they became unwell or their needs changed.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy was upheld. The care people received was personalised and responsive to people's individual needs and preferences.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people told us they felt they could approach the management with concerns and it would be dealt with.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service. The registered manager and deputy manager were liked and respected by people, their relatives and staff.

We inspected this service on 8 April 2015. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in October 2013, the service was meeting the regulations that we checked.

The service provided accommodation and personal care for up to 12 older people who may have dementia. Eight people lived at the home on the day of our inspection.

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. On the day of our inspection, the registered manager was not at the home and the deputy manager was managing the service in their absence. We refer to the deputy manager as the manager in the body of our report.

The provider did not always have effective systems in place to monitor the safety of the service. We observed that people received their medicines as prescribed but identified concerns with the way medicines were recorded. We found that accidents and incidents were recorded by staff but the information was not analysed to identify trends, which could affect how people’s care is delivered.

People told us they felt safe and well cared for. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm. People’s individual risks were assessed and guidance was in place to minimise any identified risks.

Staff received training and support to enable them to meet people’s needs and preferences effectively and had opportunities to reflect on their practice and learn from other staff. Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs and abilities. People and their relatives were involved in decisions on how they received their care and support. People were supported to take part in interests and hobbies that met their preference.

The manager and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was under a DoLS at the time of our inspection. Where people were assessed as not having capacity to make decisions, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interests.

People were supported to maintain good health and were supported to access doctors, opticians and other health professionals when they needed to.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and praised their caring attitude. Staff enjoyed working at the home and made sure it offered a homely environment for people. We saw that staff promoted people’s independence and respected their privacy and dignity.

People were able to choose how they spent their day and what they would like to eat. People’s individual dietary needs were assessed and monitored where required to ensure they maintained a balanced diet.

Information on how to make a complaint was displayed at the home and people and their relatives were encouraged to make complaints or raise concerns. The provider sought feedback on the quality of the service and took action to make improvements where necessary.

People told us they always felt welcome visiting the home and found it to be well managed.

People were positive and happy about living in the home. We observed staff interacting with people in a kind, polite and considerate way. One person said, “I have no complaints, everyone is really kind”.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs, likes and dislikes. Care plans were individual and based on people’s need. People told us they felt safe and well cared for.

There was a stable established workforce. The provider had systems in place to ensure that staff recruited were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. The inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were coming.

Eight people were in residence when we undertook our inspection. We spoke with everyone living at the home, the staff and the registered provider. There were no visitors during our inspection, but we looked at cards and comments recorded in the visitor’s book to gain their views.

We saw staff knocking on people's doors and waiting for an answer before entering, meaning people's privacy and dignity were respected. People told us they could spend time in any area of the home or alone in their bedroom when they wanted to. People using the service were happy living at the home. They told us they enjoyed their lives there and they liked the staff who cared for them. One person said, “I think it's excellent. It's very comfortable, I am never rushed and the staff are respectful.”

The home was warm, clean and homely. People told us they were happy with all aspects of the environment.

Staff received training and support to ensure they could meet the needs of the people they supported.

The provider ensured they monitored the quality of the service which meant people were encouraged to air their views and they lived in a well maintained environment.