Kendal House consists of four large, three-storey terraced houses adapted into one property in Whitley Bay town centre, close to local amenities and the beach. The service is registered to provide accommodation, personal care and support for up to 22 older people, some of whom may also be living with a dementia related condition. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of our inspection the home was fully occupied.

This inspection took place on 14 February 2017 and was unannounced. This was the second rated inspection of the service since its registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2010. We previously inspected the service in December 2014 and rated the service as ‘Good’, although identified one breach of regulations which related to accurate record keeping. Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan which detailed how they planned to improve the service. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.

The established registered manager was still in post at the service. 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.

We were inundated with positive comments about the way the staff treated people and the bearing this had on those who lived at the home and their families. Staff were described as kind, caring and considerate of people's multiple and varying needs. People were treated with the utmost of respect and dignity. The provider showed exceptional kindness towards both people and staff which went beyond the normal expectations of a provider or employer.

People told us that they felt safe with the support they received from staff at Kendal House. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if they suspected abuse. The local authority safeguarding team informed us that were no on-going organisational safeguarding matters regarding the service.

Records were kept regarding accidents and incidents, including any historical issues of a safeguarding nature. Incidents were recorded, investigated and reported in a timely manner to other relevant authorities such as the local council or CQC.

The service continued to manage risks associated with the health and safety of people, including the completion of regular checks of the property, equipment and utilities, in line with their legal responsibilities as the landlord. People’s individual care needs had been assessed for risks related to aspects of daily living and these were reviewed regularly.

Medicines were administered and managed safely and medicine administration records were well organised, detailed and correct. Medicines were stored in a safe and secure place. The staff followed a policy and procedures regarding the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines which would benefit from an update to reflect current best practice. We have made a recommendation about this.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff records showed the recruitment process was robust and staff had been safely recruited. Training was up to date, and the staff team were supported through supervision and appraisal sessions.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have the ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. It also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. In England, the local authority authorises applications to depriv

We spoke with five people and two relatives to find out their opinions of the service. In addition, we consulted a number of health and social care professionals by phone. These included an emergency care practitioner, a member of the district nursing team, two members of staff from the psychiatry of old age team and an occupational therapist from the “Reablement” team. This team helped people to regain their skills, confidence and independence following an injury or illness. We also conferred with a GP who was visiting the home on the day of our visit. All health and social care professionals were complimentary about the care and treatment which were provided. A social worker from the psychiatry of old age team informed us, “They give 120%. They go above and beyond the call of duty.”

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We found that people were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink.

People's health, safety and welfare were protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment. This was because the provider worked in cooperation with others.

We found that appropriate pre-employment checks were undertaken before staff began work.

People’s personal records, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the home were accurate and fit for purpose.

We found that the provider now had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We spoke with four people who lived at the home to find out their opinions. People told us that staff were efficient in administering their medication. One person said, “I’m so glad the staff give me my medication as I would forget to take my pills. They are so good at giving it to me, I have no need to worry.” Another person said, “The staff are excellent with my medication, they sort it all out for me.”

People who lived at the home, together with their relatives and visitors, were complimentary about the care received. One person said, “When I came here they said this was one of the best homes and it is – all very good and all very friendly.” Other comments included, “The greatest thing about this place is that they treat every person with dignity. They use people’s proper names and make sure they get all the help they need,” “They really are very very good, I couldn’t fault them. I don’t think you will find a better home anywhere,” “There’s always something going on. Every fortnight an organist comes to play for us. This is one of the best homes around with plenty of good grub,” “I can go out and about whenever I like” and “They are just wonderful. You want for nothing,”

During the day we spoke with a number of people living at Kendal House. Comments included: “I am happy and comfortable living here and cannot think of anything that could be improved”. “I like how the staff look after me”. “They knock on my bedroom door before coming in and they listen to me”. One of the visitors we spoke with said she had been "very impressed” when she first visited the home just over a year ago. “The staff were very friendly and there were no unpleasant odours”. People told us they felt able to make a comment or complaint and able to discuss any concerns with the manager. The care staff always made sure that any concerns were passed on.

This inspection took place on 9, 11 and 30 December 2014 and was unannounced. The last inspection of the service took place on 13 September 2013. There were no breaches of legal requirements identified on that occasion.

Kendal House is a care home for older people, some whom were living with dementia or had a learning disability. The home is registered to accommodate a maximum of 24 people. Nineteen people were living at the service at the time of our inspection. Nursing care is not provided. The service has a registered manager who was absent at the time of the inspection. The home was being managed by the deputy manager in their absence. 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.

Relatives and visiting professionals were very complimentary about the service. One professional described it as “..an example of good loving care..”.

The premises were well presented and safe for people to live in. The owners of the service took an active interest in ensuring standards of the premises and care were maintained. Staff were recruited appropriately, many were long serving and were well trained and knowledgeable about people’s needs. The staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs and the staff worked well as a team. Medicines were managed safely but procedures regarding record keeping had not always been followed. Risks were identified and managed but not always regularly reviewed and some were not addressed with care plans.

Staff had a caring and reassuring approach. Relatives told us they felt involved in people’s care as appropriate. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were being followed. The service ensured that people’s rights were protected by making sure they were represented appropriately.

People were supported to enjoy a nutritious diet that suited their needs and preferences. We recommended that the provider familiarise themselves with Health Action Plans for people with learning disabilities.

People had their needs assessed and care was planned and reviewed. However, we found some risks were overdue for review and care plans had not always been updated to address people’s needs. This meant there was a potential risk that staff would not be aware of the action they needed to take to ensure people were cared for appropriately.

Social activity was emphasised and choices were respected. Complaints procedures were clear and readily available. The service had received no concerns but many compliments and 'thank you's from people.

A strong management team gave good leadership. The service had a long serving registered manager and a deputy who acted as manager in her absence. The provider was involved in the service and staff clearly understood their standards and values. The provider had systems for checking and maintaining the quality of the service.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. This related to records. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.