The inspection took place on 20 &31 October 2016 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 6 October 2015, they were found to not be meeting the standards we inspected. However at this inspection the provider had made all the required improvements. This was in relation to the care and welfare of people who used the service, people’s safety, consent, engagement and the quality monitoring of the service.

Kestrel grove is registered to provide accommodation for up to 57 older people who require nursing and or personal care. At the time of the inspection 57 people were using the service.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 felt safe living at Kestrel Grove. Staff understood how to keep people safe and risks to people's safety and well-being were identified and managed. The home was calm and people's needs were met in a timely manner by sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff. The provider operated robust recruitment processes which helped to ensure that staff employed to provide care and support for people were fit to do so. People's medicines were managed safely.

Staff received regular one to one supervision from a member of the management team which made them feel supported and valued. People received support they needed to eat and drink sufficient quantities and their health needs were well catered for with appropriate referrals made to external health professionals when needed.

People and their relatives complimented the staff team for being kind and caring. Staffs were knowledgeable about individuals' care and support needs and preferences and people had been involved in the planning of their care where they were able. Visitors to the home were encouraged at any time of the day.

The provider had arrangements to receive feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, external stakeholders and staff members about the services provided. People were confident to raise anything that concerned them with staff or management and were satisfied that they would be listened to.

There was an open and respectful culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern. The provider had arrangements to regularly monitor health and safety and the quality of the care and support provided for people who used the service.

The inspection took place on 20 &31 October 2016 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 6 October 2015, they were found to not be meeting the standards we inspected. However at this inspection the provider had made all the required improvements. This was in relation to the care and welfare of people who used the service, people’s safety, consent, engagement and the quality monitoring of the service.

Kestrel grove is registered to provide accommodation for up to 57 older people who require nursing and or personal care. At the time of the inspection 57 people were using the service.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 felt safe living at Kestrel Grove. Staff understood how to keep people safe and risks to people's safety and well-being were identified and managed. The home was calm and people's needs were met in a timely manner by sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff. The provider operated robust recruitment processes which helped to ensure that staff employed to provide care and support for people were fit to do so. People's medicines were managed safely.

Staff received regular one to one supervision from a member of the management team which made them feel supported and valued. People received support they needed to eat and drink sufficient quantities and their health needs were well catered for with appropriate referrals made to external health professionals when needed.

People and their relatives complimented the staff team for being kind and caring. Staffs were knowledgeable about individuals' care and support needs and preferences and people had been involved in the planning of their care where they were able. Visitors to the home were encouraged at any time of the day.

The provider had arrangements to receive feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, external stakeholders and staff members about the services provided. People were confident to raise anything that concerned them with staff or management and were satisfied that they would be listened to.

There was an open and respectful culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern. The provider had arrangements to regularly monitor health and safety and the quality of the care and support provided for people who used the service.

We observed that staff were attentive to people's needs and treated them with respect and dignity calling them by their name. We saw that staff sought people`s agreement before providing any support and assistance. We saw that the provider gave due consideration to people's capacity to consent, and that they had taken the relevant action to ensure that they complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw that staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and promoted their independence. We found that they had a good understanding and awareness of people's care needs and preferences. We saw that care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated.

People told us that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived in the service. All of the people we spoke with were extremely complimentary about the staff, activities and the varied choice of meals. One person who used the service told us, "If you had to live in a home then this is where it should be." Another person told us "Staff escorts me to my appointments and the staff knows my little ways." Another person told us that "I have been able to negotiate core team of five staff who are very aware of my complex needs, this means that I have consistency in how my care is provided.

We found that people were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People we spoke to were satisfied with the care they received and found the staff to be friendly and helpful. One person told us, "The staff are quite good, excellent really; they’re always friendly and helpful” and that “the food is okay, on the whole it’s quite good, there are lots of activities to do here and we have a happy hour with drinks”. Another person told us, “The staff are excellent, the carers really do ‘care’, they respect your dignity, the food is good and you get a choice, but it’s not always hot though. The staff go to a lot of bother”.

People were satisfied that there was plenty of activities if they wanted to get involved.

People told us how their privacy and dignity was respected and that staff always closed the doors when they're helping with personal care. Although some people told us that not all staff knock and wait before entering their room.

We observed the home to be visibly clean on the day of our visit; all the people appeared to have had their personal care needs met.

Staff told us how they enjoyed working at the home and felt supported by management.

Overall the service was meeting standards although we did make some minor comments to the provider with regards to care plans, audits and the training record for one person.

During our visit on 27 February 2012, people we spoke with were all complimentary about the care and service provided. A person remarked, “The service is very good and the staff are extremely good.”

Another person we spoke with said, ““Staff are wonderful and kind” This was echoed by another person who said, “The care is good. The staff are very good.”

Another person said, “At mealtimes, the staff help me; they cut up my food for me. I can ring for help from my bedroom. There are choices, including take-away food. We had Chinese take-away the other day. They ordered roast duck which I like.”

When asked about choices and activities, a person commented, “There are different activities. I don’t go to all of them. I do like flower arranging which I attend.” Another person said, “Very good service. We have a choice of menu. The food is good and there is plenty to eat; more than enough.”

A person we spoke with said, “I am invited to the activities such as bingo which I join in sometimes; but mostly I prefer to do crosswords.”

Another person said, “I have attended residents meetings; we can say what we want and we do get what we want.”

A relative we spoke with commented, “Very good service. Staff are marvellous.” This was echoed by another visitor who said, “Very good service; very good staff; can’t fault them.”