This inspection took place on 11 April 2018 and was unannounced. Martin Hall is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. It provides accommodation for older people and those with mental health conditions or dementia. The home can accommodate up to 40 people. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. At the time of our inspection the current registered manager was in the process of de registering with CQC and a new manager who will be referred to in the report as ‘manager’ had been appointed who was in the process of registering with CQC. 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

The service had not previously been rated because this was the first inspection for the location under the new provider.

Guidance was in place to ensure people received their medicines when required. Medicines were managed administered safely.

Where people were unable to make decisions arrangements had been made to ensure decisions were made in people's best interests.

A system was in place to carry out suitable quality checks were being completed and actions taken where issues were identified. The provider had ensured that there were enough staff on duty. In addition, people told us that they received person-centred care.

There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. Background checks had been completed before new staff had been appointed.

The environment was clean. There were arrangements to prevent and control infections and lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong.

Staff had been supported to deliver care in line with current best practice guidance. People were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People had access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. People had access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

Information was provided to people in an accessible manner. People had been supported to access activities and community facilities. The registered manager and manager recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care. Arrangements were in place to support people at the end of their life.

The senior management team promoted a positive culture in the service that was focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. They had also taken steps to enable the service to meet regulatory requirements. Staff had been helped to understand their responsibilities to develop good team work and to speak out if they had any concerns. People, their relatives and members of st