This inspection took place on 8 and 9 December 2016 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out on 19 September 2013. We had no previous concerns prior to this inspection.

Kenver House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 30 people. At the time of our visit there were 28 people living at the home. The registered manager told us the home had two vacant beds. The home also provided day-care to people.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

Most people could not directly tell us about their care and support because of their cognitive impairment. We spent time at the home observing how people were cared for by staff. Throughout our inspection people were cared for and treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

The registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to protect people from harm. Risks had been assessed and appropriate assessments were in place to reduce or eliminate the risk.

People were provided with safe care by adequate numbers of appropriately skilled staff being made available. Staff recruitment procedures were safe and the employment files contained all the relevant information to help ensure only the appropriate people were employed to work at the home.

People were given their medicines in the right amounts at the right times by senior staff who had been trained to carry out this task. All medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. The home had policies and procedures for dealing with medicines and these were adhered to.

The home was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had received appropriate training, and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the DoLS.

Staff appeared to be caring and we observed positive caring relationships with staff and people living at the home. People told us they were happy with their care.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals when they required specialist help. Care records showed advice had been sought from a range of health and social care professionals.

People had their nutritional needs assessed and monitored and were supported to enjoy a range of food and drink of their choice throughout the day.

Concerns and complaints were encouraged and responded to and people knew how to complain and share their experiences. People living at the home, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback, as were professionals. Compliments were received in abundance and displayed on a notice board.

The home was well led and management promoted a positive culture that was open and transparent. The registered manager demonstrated good visible leadership and understood their responsibilities. Quality assurance practices were robust and records and data were collected and used to make improvements.

It was evident from observations we carried out that people were treated with warmth and respect and that staff engaged with people in a positive way. For those people who lacked capacity we saw that decisions had been taken on their behalf, in their best interests. Staff knew how to report suspected abuse and allegations of abuse had been reported to the appropriate agencies.

Care plans recorded peoples’ individual care needs, preferences and their health needs. We spoke with three family members who confirmed their relative’s needs were met and that they had no concerns. They said that if they had a problem they would go straight to the manager. We were told the food was good and “Nothing needs to improve, they (the staff) are so loving”

People told us that staff were caring and said “The girls are good” and “they are friendly, they are respectful”.

The home was generally clean, and areas to be maintained had been identified. Some areas that were in need of cleaning were carried out immediately.

People who use the serviced, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. The provider made visits to the home and spoke with people and their families on a regular basis.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We spoke to a family member and a friend of two people who were visiting. They said that they had been kept informed if there had been changes to people's health. They were happy with the care and support offered to their relative/friend.

We carried out observations of people's care and interaction with staff. Some people were spending time in the lounge and were involved in activities. Others were in their own rooms whilst some others were walking freely around parts of the home. We saw that staff interacted fully with people and were respectful in their conversations.

Some people were more relaxed than others, with some not so comfortable in each other's company. Staff were aware of their needs and approached them in a sensitive way.

We looked at people's care files and saw that their needs had been assessed and their care and treatment had been planned and delivered in line with their individual needs.

We looked at other records to ensure that people's safety was being maintained. We saw there were sufficient, trained and supervised staff on duty to support people with their needs. Health and safety and management audits had been carried out regularly to help monitor the quality of the service.

We were told “staff sort things out” and that they were “helpful and respectful”.

“I like living here, am very happy” and “staff take an interest and help to support me”

We were told 5 people had recently been on holiday to Blackpool. They confirmed they had been included and that they had a good time.

We spoke to people who had capacity to give consent and made decisions about their care. They told us they were involved in their care and gave examples of when they had made decisions.

We observed staff and saw they approached people respectfully when supporting them in their daily routines and conversations. People were seen to be relaxed and comfortable and responded positively.