The inspection took place on 5 December 2017 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection took place on 23 February 2016 we rated the service Good. At this inspection on 5 December 2017 the service remained Good.

Objective Care Limited is a care home for up to eight adults who have mental health needs. People who live at the home, other stakeholders and the provider call the home West House. At the time of the inspection eight people were living at the home. The provider is also called Objective Care Limited. They are a small private company operating this care home only. The owner of the company was involved in the day to day running of the home and worked there alongside the staff and registered manager.

There was a registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who lived at the service were happy and had good relationships with the staff. They felt the service was caring and that the staff were kind, considerate and polite. People's representatives felt that the service was well run and that people had the support they needed to stay safe and well.

There were enough staff employed to keep people safe and meet their needs. They had the information, training and support they needed to care for people. They staff worked well as a team and communicated clearly with one another.

People were safely cared for. There were procedures designed to protect them from the risk of abuse, to safeguard them from spread of infections and to assess and mitigate risks to their safety and wellbeing. People received medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. The environment was safely maintained. There was evidence the staff had responded appropriately to incidents and accidents.

People's care needs had been assessed and planned for in line with current good proactive guidance. They had consented to their care and treatment and were involved in reviewing how their needs were being met. Each person had an individual care plan which told the staff how they needed to be cared for. There was evidence that these plans were followed and updated when people's needs changed. People received the support they needed to stay healthy and the staff worked closely with other healthcare professionals to meet people's needs. People had a choice of food and drink and their nutritional needs were monitored and met.

The registered manager was familiar with the needs of people living at the service and worked alongside the care staff to meet these needs. People felt the service was well managed and they were able to speak with the registered manager and provider whenever they needed. Records were appropriately maintained and well organised. There were clear and well thought out policies and procedures and the staff were aware of these along with the visions and values of the service.

The inspection took place on 23 February 2016 and was unannounced.

The last inspection of the service was on 16 June 2014, when we found no breaches of Regulation.

Objective Care Limited is a care home for up to eight adults who have mental health needs. People who live at the home, other stakeholders and the provider call the home West House. At the time of the inspection five people were living at the home, although one person was in hospital. The provider is also called Objective Care Limited. They are a small private company operating this care home only. The owner of the company was involved in the day to day running of the home and worked there alongside the staff and manager.

There was a registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The risks to people’s safety had been assessed and there were individual plans to keep them safe.

People received the support they needed with their medicines.

There were enough staff on duty and there were procedures for the recruitment of suitable staff.

People were cared for by staff who were well supported and trained.

People had consented to their care and treatment. Where they were unable to give specific consent there had been agreements made in their best interest by the staff, the person’s representative and other professionals.

People were given the support they needed to stay healthy.

People had a varied and nutritious diet and they liked the food at the service. People had good relationships with the staff and each other. There was a relaxed and caring atmosphere at the service.

People’s privacy was respected and people’s individual needs were met. They had been assessed and care had been planned to meet people’s needs and reflect their preferences.

People took part in a range of individual and group activities.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure. People knew what to do if they had a complaint and they felt they would be listened to and their concerns acted upon.

People felt the atmosphere at the service was inclusive, positive and supportive.

The manager had the skills and knowledge to run the service efficiently and to meet the aims and objectives of the provider.

There were systems in place to audit and check quality. These were followed and action had been taken where improvements were needed.

Two people were living at the home at the time of our inspection. We met and spoke with both of these people and spoke with their relatives. The service employed three staff, including the manager. On the day of our inspection two of the staff were away from the service on a training course. We spoke with the manager and the provider.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. The environment was appropriately maintained and there were regular checks on health and safety. There were enough staff employed and their suitability had been checked before they commenced work. People’s medicines were safely managed. Both people living at the home told us they felt safe and secure there. The relatives of people living at the home said people were cared for in a safe environment where their needs were met.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. The people who lived at the home had moved there shortly before our inspection. Their relatives told us they were appropriately supported during their move and their needs had been fully assessed. People were being supported to be part of the local community and to learn independent living skills at a pace which met their needs and wishes. The manager had made contact with other professionals who could offer support to meet people’s different needs. The provider told us they had started to assess the needs of other people who may wish to move to the home.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. People told us the staff were kind, polite and respectful. They said they were offered choices and these were listened to. The relatives who we spoke with told us they felt the staff were very caring and supportive. One person said, ‘’I am very impressed with the service’’. People’s needs were appropriately recorded and we saw these had been met. Both the people who lived at the home told us they were happy living there and their relatives told us they were also happy.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. People’s needs had been assessed and their care had been planned to reflect their assessed needs. The staff had listened to people’s wishes and made sure they acted on these.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well led. The manager and provider both worked at the home supporting people who lived there. There were regular meetings for staff and a handover of information each day. The manager had undertaken checks and audits of all aspects of the service and had plans for future developments. People living at the home and their relatives told us they were consulted and involved with decisions about their own care and the service.