This unannounced inspection took place on 29 March 2017.

The home is registered to provide accommodation, nursing or personal care to a maximum of 41 people. People also access the service for short term respite care. On the day of our inspection 39 people were using the service. A high number of people who live there have needs associated with brain injury, illness or disability.

The previous ratings inspection of the service took place on16 and 20 March 2015 and at that inspection we found the service to require improvement in the area of Safe. This was because we found issues with the management of some medicines, which required improvement to prevent people being placed at risk of possible ill health. At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made to ensure the safe management of medicines.

The service had a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was available on the day of the inspection.

People living in the home felt safe. Staff were aware of the processes they should follow to minimise risk to people. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse. Staffing levels and skill mix ensured that people’s needs would be met. Staff had been trained to manage medicines safely and people received their medicines as and when they should.

Staff had the skills and knowledge required to support people effectively. Staff received an induction prior to them working for the service and they felt prepared to do their job. Staff could access on-going training and regular supervision to assist them in their role. Staff knew how to support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and gained their consent before assisting or supporting them. Staff assisted people to access food and drink.

Where possible people were involved in making their own decisions about their care and their specific needs. Staff provided dignified care and showed respect to people. People were encouraged to retain their independence with staff there ready to support them if they needed help.

Staff understood people’s needs and provided specific care. People’s preferences had been noted and acted upon where possible. People were given the opportunity to become involved in activities. People knew how to raise complaints or concerns and felt that they would be listened to and the appropriate action would be taken.

People were happy with the service they received and felt the service was led in an appropriate way. Staff were supported in their roles. Quality assurance audits were carried out, so that it was clear to see if any patterns or trends were developing which may impact upon the service provided to people. We received notifications of accidents or incidents that had occurred, which the provider is required to do so by law.

There were 38 people living at the home on the day of our inspection. No one knew we would be inspecting that day.

All of the people we spoke with were satisfied with the care and overall service provided. One person said, “It is a good place”. Another person told us,” They are good and look after me”. Relatives were very complimentary they used words such as, “Marvellous” and “Wonderful” to describe the service provided. One relative said, “It is an amazing place. It was recommended to us. They have come on so well since they have been here”.

People's needs had been assessed which ensured that their health, personal care, and safety needs could be monitored and met.

Recruitment processes were adequate which gave people living at the home assurance that only suitable staff had been employed which had decreased the risk of them being harmed in any way.

People and staff we spoke with highlighted that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. One person told us, “There are always enough staff around. We do not have to wait for anything”. We found that staff had been given training and support which had helped them to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

Records we looked at and people we spoke with confirmed that systems had been used to monitor how the service had been run to benefit the people who lived at the home.

We arrived at Leabrook House at 06.15 hours so that we could indirectly/ directly observe or sample routines and care delivery from early morning. During our inspection we spoke with staff, managers and two relatives. We also spoke with five people living at Leabrook House. Below are a few examples of what they said to us;

“I was worried about coming into a nursing home. I thought they were for old people. It is brilliant though. I have no complaints. I am well looked after”.

“I am very happy here and have no complaints. I am happy with the building itself and the staff who look after me”.

We spoke with two relatives. They were complimentary about the care provided. One relative told us; “We were worried at first as they had not been in a home before. They settled so quickly and are so happy being here we do not worry anymore. We are happy with the care; we do not have any complaints. The staff are very good, they are kind and caring. We are always kept informed if there are any changes or problems”.

Another relative told us; “This place is second to none. I can not fault it. No problems at all”.

We spoke with a number of staff below are some of the comments they made;

“I think everyone is safe and well cared for. I have had experience of other homes and in comparison this one is outstanding”.

“I have worked in other homes, this one is the best one yet”.

This unannounced inspection took place on 29 March 2017.

The home is registered to provide accommodation, nursing or personal care to a maximum of 41 people. People also access the service for short term respite care. On the day of our inspection 39 people were using the service. A high number of people who live there have needs associated with brain injury, illness or disability.

The previous ratings inspection of the service took place on16 and 20 March 2015 and at that inspection we found the service to require improvement in the area of Safe. This was because we found issues with the management of some medicines, which required improvement to prevent people being placed at risk of possible ill health. At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made to ensure the safe management of medicines.

The service had a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was available on the day of the inspection.

People living in the home felt safe. Staff were aware of the processes they should follow to minimise risk to people. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse. Staffing levels and skill mix ensured that people’s needs would be met. Staff had been trained to manage medicines safely and people received their medicines as and when they should.

Staff had the skills and knowledge required to support people effectively. Staff received an induction prior to them working for the service and they felt prepared to do their job. Staff could access on-going training and regular supervision to assist them in their role. Staff knew how to support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and gained their consent before assisting or supporting them. Staff assisted people to access food and drink.

Where possible people were involved in making their own decisions about their care and their specific needs. Staff provided dignified care and showed respect to people. People were encouraged to retain their independence with staff there ready to support them if they needed help.

Staff understood people’s needs and provided specific care. People’s preferences had been noted and acted upon where possible. People were given the opportunity to become involved in activities. People knew how to raise complaints or concerns and felt that they would be listened to and the appropriate action would be taken.

People were happy with the service they received and felt the service was led in an appropriate way. Staff were supported in their roles. Quality assurance audits were carried out, so that it was clear to see if any patterns or trends were developing which may impact upon the service provided to people. We received notifications of accidents or incidents that had occurred, which the provider is required to do so by law.