Oldfield House is a residential care home for 33 people, some of whom had been diagnosed with dementia. The service is provided by Runwood Homes Limited. 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.

At the time of the inspection the home was providing residential care for 32 people. The home is over two floors and has several communal and dining areas and easily accessible secure gardens.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good. However we have rated the ‘Safe’ domain as ‘Requires Improvement’. This was because we found some issues with the management of medicines. Also the manager’s audit of medicines had not identified these issues. The issues found were discussed with the registered manager and the regional operations director who confirmed they would address the concerns as a matter of urgency. Following the inspection we received information that confirmed action had been taken to resolve the concerns.

Some people who used the service and their relatives felt there were not always a sufficient number of staff on duty. However the registered manager kept this monitored and made sure numbers were above the minimum required, of the providers calculation using a dependency tool. The senior managers reassured us they would continue to keep staffing numbers under close review and increase them as and when required.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse.

People enjoyed the food provided, were encouraged to make decisions about meals and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. On the day of the inspection the breakfast meal was a calm and enjoyable experience. This was not the case at lunchtime, when we found the dining room experience was rather chaotic and not a pleasant experience. This meant some people were seen to be quite agitated. The registered manager told us this was not typical and he would be carrying out further dining experience audits to address and improve people’s dining experience.

People and their families were involved in making decisions about their care. A range of healthcare professionals visited the home to offer support and advice to staff about people's varying needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Each member of staff had a programme of training and was trained to care and support people who used the service safely and to a good standard.

People told us they were happy with the support they received. We saw staff had a warm rapport with the people they cared for. Relatives spoke positively about the staff at all levels and were happy with the care their family member received.

In the main people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. However on the day of the inspection we observed two incidents where people were not fully respected.

Peoples’ needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them staying at the service. Communication with relatives was very good. Relatives told us that staff always notified them about any changes to their family members care.

People had access to a limited range of social activities. The service was in the process of employing a new activity worker who would have responsibility for extending the choice of activities available to people

The service had a complaints procedure that was accessible to people who used the service and their relatives. People told us they had no reason to complain as the service was “Very good”.

There was a registered manager at the service who was well thought of and respected by everyone who had an interes

The inspection took place on 12 January 2016 and was unannounced, which meant the provider did not know we were coming. This was the first inspection of the service following the Care Quality Commission registration in September 2015. The service was previously registered under another provider.

The service has a registered manager who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since September 2013. 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.

Oldfield House is a care home situated in Stainforth, Doncaster which is registered to accommodate up to 33 people. The service is provided by Runwood Homes Limited. At the time of the inspection the home was providing residential care for 19 people, some of whom had been diagnosed with dementia. The service has several communal and dining areas and easily accessible secure gardens. The home is close to local amenities of shops and healthcare facilities.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. The members of the management team and nurses we spoke with had a full and up to date understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by appropriately trained professionals. We found that appropriate DoLS applications had been made, and staff were acting in accordance with DoLS authorisations.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. For example we saw evidence that they home regularly makes contact with district nurses, community nurses for mental health issues, and peoples own doctors. Other health professionals such as dieticians, dentists, occupational therapists and opticians were also requested as needed.

There were sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and provider however, formal supervisions and appraisals were still being transferred onto Runwood Homes Limited’s documentation.

Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals and there was always something on the menu they liked. We observed people being offered a second helping during breakfast and lunch. Snacks of fruit and biscuits and drinks were also available for people to help themselves

People were able to access some activities. There was an activity co-ordinator who worked two days a week at the home and we saw people enjoying being pampered in the morning and two people help to arrange fresh flowers for the dining area in the afternoon of the visit. A café area had been introduced and we saw this area was well used by people who used the service. There was a strong and visible person centred culture in the service (person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each individual).

We found the service had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. Everyone we spoke with told us that they felt that the staff knew them and their likes and dislikes.

Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the registered m