This was the first inspection of Martins House under the new provider GCH (Hertfordshire). GCH (Martins House) was changed as a legal entity to GCH (Hertfordshire) in June 2017 but had remained part of the Gold Care Homes group.

This inspection was carried out on the 25 July and 02 August 2018.

Martins House 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. They are registered to provide accommodation nursing and personal care to 60 older people some of whom may live with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 53 people living in the home.

The home had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 told us they felt safe living at Martins House. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding processes and when to report concerns to the registered manager, or when to confidentially raise concerns through whistleblowing. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people`s needs and were knowledgeable about risk management and how to mitigate risks to keep people safe. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who responded in a timely manner to people when they required assistance. People were given their medicines as the prescriber intended and medicines were managed safely. People lived in a clean and hygienic environment.

People were supported by a staff team who had been trained appropriately and who were supported by their line manager. People’s consent was obtained prior to care being provided and staff explained to people what they were consenting to. Where people were unable to provide consent the legal requirements were understood by staff and followed.

People were supported to have sufficient food and drinks. People had access to healthcare professionals such as their GP as and when required.

People felt that they were treated as individuals and they mattered. The care people received was personalised and that staff paid close attention to the needs of the people they supported.

People were encouraged to socialise, pursue their hobbies and interests and try new things. There was a strong culture within the service of treating people with dignity, respect and supporting people to remain as independent as possible. People and the staff knew each other well and these relationships were valued by people who used the service. People nearing the end of their life and their families received a good level of care and support.

People and their relatives where appropriate were involved in the development and the review of their care and support plans. Support plans were comprehensive and captured people’s support needs as well as their preferences regarding the care they received. Care plans were updated every time a change occurred which influenced the way people received support. People were supported to take decisions about their care and be independent. People were encouraged to socialise, pursue their hobbies and interests and try new things.

The registered manager and the provider carried out a regular programme of audits to assess the quality of the service, and we saw that these were capable of identifying shortfalls which needed to be addressed. Where shortfalls were identified, records demonstrated that these were acted upon promptly. People felt the registered manager was approachable and staff felt the registered manager listened to their views and was responsive. A range of meetings were held so people and staff were able to share their views about the qu