Inglewood Rest Home is a residential care home for 20 older people. At the time of our inspection 20 people were living at the home. At the last inspection in April 2015, the home was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the home remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. People told us they felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of the action they should take where there was suspicion a person was at risk of harm or abuse. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care and support was delivered in a way that kept people safe from harm. There were adequate numbers of safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines as prescribed.

The care people received continued to be effective. People received support from staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. People were asked for their consent before care was provided. People’s capacity had been assessed and recorded so staff knew how to support people when making choices and decisions. People were happy with the food and drink they received and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People had access to appropriate healthcare professionals when they required.

People continued to receive support that was kind and caring. People’s choices were respected and their dignity and privacy maintained. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

The service people received continued to be responsive to their needs. People were involved in the planning and review of their support needs. Staff were aware of people’s individual care needs and supported them according to their preferences. Where people had any issues or concerns they knew how to make complaints and said these would be responded to.

The home continued to be well-run. People and staff expressed confidence in the provider and registered manager. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service people received which included seeking feedback from people and their relatives about the quality of service provided.

Inglewood Rest Home is a residential care home for 20 older people. At the time of our inspection 20 people were living at the home. At the last inspection in April 2015, the home was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the home remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. People told us they felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of the action they should take where there was suspicion a person was at risk of harm or abuse. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care and support was delivered in a way that kept people safe from harm. There were adequate numbers of safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines as prescribed.

The care people received continued to be effective. People received support from staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. People were asked for their consent before care was provided. People’s capacity had been assessed and recorded so staff knew how to support people when making choices and decisions. People were happy with the food and drink they received and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People had access to appropriate healthcare professionals when they required.

People continued to receive support that was kind and caring. People’s choices were respected and their dignity and privacy maintained. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

The service people received continued to be responsive to their needs. People were involved in the planning and review of their support needs. Staff were aware of people’s individual care needs and supported them according to their preferences. Where people had any issues or concerns they knew how to make complaints and said these would be responded to.

The home continued to be well-run. People and staff expressed confidence in the provider and registered manager. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service people received which included seeking feedback from people and their relatives about the quality of service provided.

We carried out an inspection to help us answer five questions;

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?”

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with five people using the service and one of their relatives, three care staff supporting them and looking at three care records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

All of the people we spoke with who used the service and one of their relatives told us that they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and care staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. All of the care staff we spoke with were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.

The provider had appropriate policies and procedures to protect people’s rights and choices and gain their consent to the care and support they received. The provider's policies reflected the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Care staff had received training in how to protect people's rights and understood legal requirements.

Care staff knew about risk management plans and we saw that they supported people in line with those plans.

The manager ensured that care staff rotas were planned in advance to maintain the staffing numbers required to provide care in a safe way. The care staff had the training and support required to ensure that people’s needs were met.

The home was clean and hygienic. The registered manager made regular checks to ensure the risk of infection was controlled.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and care staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them and where people wanted family members were involved. All of the people we spoke with told us they were involved in the care planning and reviews of care. We saw that care plans were regularly updated.

Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by the care staff.

Care staff received the appropriate training to meet the diverse needs of people who used the service.

Visitors confirmed that they could visit when they wanted to and spend time alone in privacy if they wished.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by care staff that were kind and caring. We saw that care staff gave people encouragement and were patient with them. One relative told us, “I visit my relative regularly and the staff are kind and caring”.

People’s preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to engage in different activities each day.

All of the people we spoke with were aware of the home’s complaints procedure and knew how to raise concerns. One person told us, “They are responsive to any requests you make”. The provider sought the views of people about their care and acted on them.

Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans had been updated to reflect this.

Is the service well led?

The service had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. Records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were addressed promptly.

The care staff were well supported to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out the care people needed. Care staff were given feedback about their performance so improvements could be made where needed.

All of the care staff we spoke with told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality of care. Care staff told us the home was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

During our visit we spoke with six people who lived at the service, five visiting relatives and two members of staff. We also spoke to the registered manager.

We found that care was planned and personalised to meet people’s individual needs.

We saw that there was choice on the menu and people told us that they could always have something else if they wanted it. We saw that drinks were offered frequently throughout the day.

We had some concerns about the processes taken to control the risk of infection. Some areas of the home had become resistant to cleaning (which meant that they looked dirty after they had been cleaned). The cleaning schedules were not detailed enough to ensure that the home was cleaned efficiently.

We saw that recruitment processes were designed to ensure that the service only employed people who were of good character to care for the people who lived at the service.

We saw that people who used the service were encouraged to use the complaints procedure for daily events. This meant that the complaints procedure was effective as people who lived at the service were able to access it and use it.

We visited Inglewood Rest Home in order to up date the information we hold and to establish that the needs of people using the service were being met.

18 people were in residence when we visited. We used different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. We spoke with seven people who lived at the home, four relatives, three staff members and the registered manager. We also spent time observing the care provided in the home.

We saw people had the necessary equipment in place to provide a safe environment, e.g. a stair lift. We witnessed staff knocking on bedroom doors before entering. This meant people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

People were consulted about their care, and where able, gave consent to the treatment and support they received. Relatives told us they were informed about any changes in their relative's condition. This meant that people received the care they needed.

People spoke well of the home. One relative said, “The manager and staff here are very good”.

People were protected from abuse. Staff understood the signs of abuse and were able to explain how to report any suspicions of abuse.

We checked the number of staff on duty and found that people who used the service had their needs met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff.

We saw that the service had a quality assurance system in place ensuring that people received safe and appropriate care that met their needs.

We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. There were 18 people living at the home on the day of the visit and no one knew we would be visiting. We spoke to six people who live at the home, three relatives and two staff.

Everyone we spoke to was very complimentary about the home and we did not receive any negative comments. One person said “They really look after you here”.

Staff receive training to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills to meet people's needs. Staff spoken to clearly knew the needs of the people who lived at the home and they knew how to support them.

People living at the home told us about various activities that they could participate in if they chose to, so that they had an interesting and meaningful lifestyle. One person said “We had a lovely Christmas, we had a great party and the children came in to sing. We go on boat trips and pub lunches”.

People told us that they knew how to raise any concerns if they had any, however all the people we spoke to told us that they did not have any concerns.

There was a pleasant, homely, friendly and welcoming atmosphere in the home. We saw good interactions between the staff and people living at the home. A relative said “The staff have been friendly and welcoming, the atmosphere is lovely”.

People join in meetings about the home and their opinions are sought, so that they are involved in how the home is run.