Longwood Place provides short break respite care and accommodation for up to eight people who have needs associated with dementia, physical, sensory or learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection two people were receiving respite care.

Longwood Place is a ‘care home’. People in care homes received accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection on the 13 and 21 January 2016, we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The provider’s recruitment procedures ensured only suitable staff were employed. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were appropriately assessed, managed and reviewed. People’s medicines were managed and stored safely. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe and to protect them from harm and abuse. Measures were in place to protect people from the risk of the spread of infection.

Staff had received training, supervision and an appraisal of their performance to enable them to acquire the skills and knowledge to provide effective care. Staff had an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet and to access health care services if required.

Staff were kind and sensitive to people’s needs. Staff were observed providing good personalised care and it was evident they clearly understood people’s individual needs. Staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected and maintained at all times. Where required people and families were supported to access advocacy services.

People’s care plans were person centred and relatives were involved in the planning and review of their family member’s care and support needs prior to their stay at the service. People were supported by staff to pursue their interests and access the community. There was a complaints system in place and relatives told us they were confident any concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

Staff and relatives spoke positively about the registered and deputy managers who were committed to providing a good person centred service. There were systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Relatives and staff had the opportunity to say how they felt about the service and the service it provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 13 and 21 January 2016.

Longwood Place is registered to provide accommodation with personal care to up to eight people with needs associated with dementia, physical, sensory or learning disabilities. There were two people receiving a respite service on the first day of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about identifying abuse and how to report it to safeguard people. Recruitment procedures were thorough. Risk management plans were in place to support people to have as much independence as possible while keeping them safe. There were also processes in place to manage any risks in relation to the running of the service.

Medicines were safely stored, recorded and administered safely and people received their prescribed medicines to meet their needs. People had support to access healthcare professionals and services. People had choices of food and drinks that supported their nutritional or health care needs and their personal preferences.

People were supported by skilled staff who knew them well and were available in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs effectively. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and they found the staff to be friendly and caring. People were supported to participate in social activities including community based outings.

Staff used their training effectively to support people. The manager understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff were aware of their role in relation to MCA and DoLS and how to seek people’s consent and support people to make decisions.

Care records were regularly reviewed and showed that the person or their relatives had been involved in the planning of their care. They included people’s preferences and individual needs so that staff had clear information on how to give people the support that they needed. People told us that they received the care they required.

The service was well led; people knew the manager and found them to be approachable and available in the home. People living and working in the service had the opportunity to say how they felt about the home and the service it provided. Their views were listened to and actions were taken in response. The provider and registered manager had clear systems in place to check on the quality and safety of the service provided and to put actions plans in place where needed.

The people using the service at the time of our inspection had complex needs which meant that they were not able to tell us about their experiences. We spoke with two people during our inspection.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service the deputy manager greeted us and noted our identification and asked us to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

Appropriate measures were in place to ensure security of the property and people had access to garden areas that were well maintained. Risks associated with the environment were assessed and managed and routine safety checks were undertaken including fire safety. Emergencies were planned for. We saw a range of equipment for people needing support and records showed us that these were maintained and serviced regularly to ensure they were safe to use.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure people’s medicines were stored and administered safely.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLs) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People's care records showed that care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People’s health and care needs were reviewed before each period of respite which meant that staff were provided with up to date information in relation to any changes in people’s needs to ensure they could meet them effectively. Specialist dietary, communication and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

From our observations and time spent at Longwood Place we saw that the people staying there were receiving the care and support they needed in an individual way and wherever possible staff tried to facilitate choice.

Is the service caring?

We found the service provided a very happy, inclusive and homely environment that enabled people to live a normal lifestyle. The people we spoke with were happy with the care and support they received and said they enjoyed staying at Longwood Place. They said they were looked after well and the staff were very nice.

The service worked well with people’s permanent carers and other agencies and services such as social workers, day centres and healthcare professionals. This ensured people received continued and appropriate care and support during their respite stay.

Records showed that people's healthcare needs were being met and that the staff acted promptly when any concerns were identified.

We saw that the staff interacted with people staying there in a caring, respectful and professional manner. Staff understood people's individual needs and cared for their wellbeing. This was supported by the personalised care plans that related specifically to people's support in relation to their communication needs and physical disability. We saw staff were patient and attentive to people's needs throughout our inspection; they interacted positively with people and gave them time to respond.

Is the service responsive?

To minimise disruption whilst staying away from home, people, where possible, were supported to continue their usual routines such as attending day care facilities and social clubs. The service provided a range of additional activities in the home and in the local and wider community. One person told us that, during their stay, they enjoyed going to a large shopping centre and eating out, with staff.

During our inspection we saw people engaged and interacted well with staff. They received care and support in accordance with their preferences, choices and diverse needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager and a deputy manager in post. They were both experienced and provided strong leadership. Staff told us that they felt well supported and were able to work towards additional qualifications in care. Records showed that staff received regular training relevant to their role.

Arrangements were in place that ensured planning and flexible staffing that ensured there were sufficient staffing numbers, with appropriate skills, to meet the needs of people during their respite stay.

There were quality assurance systems, audits and records that showed identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. People and their carers were provided with the opportunity to feed back any information about how their stay went following discharge. We saw that the systems in place ensured the quality of the service was continuingly improving and developing to provide good outcomes for people.

People we spoke with were very complimentary about the care provided by the staff at Longwood Place. One relative said, "They are brilliant, very caring and kind and my relative loves it here."

We found that staff communicated with relatives prior to coming to stay at the care home so that they were up to date on the current condition of the person using the service. This enabled them to plan their care and meet their needs. Care plans we viewed were informative and any medication requirements were clearly recorded. This showed us that care was delivered in line with people's needs.

The home had effective systems in place to reduce the risk of a health care associated infection. Cleaning schedules were in place and all areas of the location were very clean and tidy. Kitchen hygiene was also of a good standard and staff had received infection control training.

When we looked at staffing levels, we found that the provider had assessed the needs of people staying at the home to ensure that sufficient numbers of staff were available to provide the care required. We saw that this was planned in advance of people coming to stay at the location. The provider also ensured that staff had the right qualifications to meet the needs of people.

The home had a clear complaints policy and system for managing them. People we spoke with knew how to complain if they wished to do so but had not had cause to raise any issues.

The people using the service at the time of our inspection in October 2012 had limited verbal communication. They communicated with us using facial expressions, body language and eye contact. When asked if they liked staying at Longwood Place they smiled happily and showed us the thumbs up sign. We asked if they felt safe and if they liked the staff and they responded positively to both questions.

We found that the staff had been trained and had received regular updates in their training. Staff told us that they felt well supported and the supervision records showed that regular supervision sessions had taken place.

We saw staff interacting with people that use the service and they treated them in a respectful dignified manner. We spoke with relatives of people that use the service and they told us that the service was good. They said that they had been given good information about the home and that staff communicated well. One relative said, “All of the staff are wonderful, they are well trained and very caring.” Another relative said, “The home asks me to complete a feedback form after each and every visit so that they have my views about the service.”