About the service: Okeley Care Home is a residential care home that is registered to provide support to up to 84 people. The service was providing care to 74 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The majority of people living at the service were living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service: People told us that they felt safe, however we found medicines were not always being managed safely and we identified shortfalls in how risks were responded to and monitored. People told us they sometimes had to wait for support and we found there were not sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. We observed staff were rushed at times and made observations where this had impacted on people’s dignity. We also found improvements were needed to care plans and activities. The auditing and governance at the service had not proactively identified and addressed all the issues found at this inspection.

People spoke positively about the food that was provided for them and we saw evidence of their involvement in this. Whilst care planning was not always consistent, we did see examples that were personalised and where people’s individual needs and preferences had been responded to. People spoke positively about the staff and we also observed good practice from staff in response to needs relating to people’s dementia.

There had been two changes in management since our last inspection which had led to inconsistent leadership. There was a new manager in post who shared their ideas and vision for the service with us. They had started to implement some new practice with a focus on people’s dignity and promoting independence. Staff told us they felt supported and we saw evidence that staff had received training and support for their roles.

Rating at last inspection: Good. Our last inspection was carried out in March 2016 where the service was rated as good and there were no breaches of the legal requirements.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check if the service was continuing to meet the characteristics of a good rating and to check all legal requirements were still being met.

Enforcement: Action we told provider to take (refer to end of full report)

Follow up: The provider will share an action plan with CQC and we will continue to monitor the service. We will return in line with our policy to check that the concerns we identified have been addressed and that the legal requirements are met.

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

Okeley Care Centre provides accommodation and personal care for up to 84 older people who may also have dementia. Care is provided on three floors with different units on each floor. The layout of the home means that people can walk around each unit without encountering barriers, or locked doors. At the time of our visit there were 82 people living in the service.

The service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. There were appropriate arrangements in place for medication to be stored and administered safely, and there were sufficient numbers of care staff with the correct skills and knowledge to safely meet people’s needs.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and are required to report on what we find. The MCA sets out what must be done to make sure the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected. The DoLS are a code of practice to supplement the main MCA code of practice. Relevant professionals had undertaken appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act.

People’s care plans were individual and contained information about people’s needs, likes and dislikes and their ability to make decisions.

People had access to healthcare professionals. A choice of food and drink was available that reflected their nutritional needs, and took into account their personal lifestyle preferences or health care needs.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

People were encouraged to follow their interests and hobbies. They were supported to keep in contact with their family and friends.

There was a strong management team who encouraged an open culture and who led by example. Staff morale was high and they felt that their views were valued.

The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided, and to drive improvements where this was required.

On the day of inspection there were 82 people living at Okeley Care Centre. The home was divided into five units, with a separate staff team assigned to each. Three of the units provided care for people who had dementia.

We spoke with eight people who lived at the home. One person said to us: "I have no complaints; the staff are so kind all the time." Another person said: "I don't think they could do it any better." Two people told us how they had made friends with each other since coming to live at the home. We were not able to speak with some of the other people due to their communication needs. We observed the care and attention these people received from staff. All of the interactions we saw were appropriate, warm, respectful and friendly. People were treated in a way which sought to preserve their dignity.

The accommodation was designed to meet the needs of the people living there, was suited to caring for people with limited mobility and was properly maintained. The home was warm, clean and was personalised to the people who lived there.

We saw that people's support plans and risk assessments reflected their needs and were up to date. Staff we spoke with were aware of the contents of the care plans, which enabled them to deliver safe care in line with those plans. The provider had systems in place that ensured the safe receipt, storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff recruitment systems were robust.

Feedback about the service from the relatives we spoke with was positive and the comments they made to us during the inspection were passed back to the manager to be responded to. They told us that staff were kind, approachable, listened to their views, provided good care and were always available. One relative said "I trust the staff to do their job of looking after my relative and they do it well".