OSJCT Buckland Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 50 older people. At the time of our inspection 35 people were living at Buckland Court. At the last inspection in December 2015, we identified that the service was in breach of regulations relating to consent. At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to address this breach of the regulations.

This inspection took place on 7 June 2017 and was unannounced. We returned on 8 June 2017 to complete the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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 use the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff and management. Comments from people included, “The staff are very nice, I get on well with them. They know what they’re doing”. One person when asked what made the service good replied, “It’s the staff, they’re excellent”. We observed staff demonstrating a good understanding of people’s needs and how to meet them.

People told us they felt safe when receiving care and were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. Comments from people included, “We’re as safe as houses here – the staff are very good” and “I feel safe here. No one bothers me and the staff will help out if I need them”.

Staff understood the needs of the people they were providing care for. People told us staff provided care with kindness and compassion.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled. They received a thorough induction when they started working at the home. They demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training relevant to their role.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People had regular group and individual meetings to provide feedback about their care and there was an effective complaints procedure. One person told us, “I would speak to (the registered manager) if I had any concerns. She would sort it out”.

The provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care provided at Buckland Court. Feedback was encouraged and was used to make improvements to the service.

OSJCT Buckland Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 50 older people. At the time of our inspection 48 people were living at Buckland Court. The home was last inspected in May 2013 and was found to be meeting all of the standards assessed.

This inspection took place on 8 December 2015 and was unannounced. We returned on 9 December 2015 to complete the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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 provider’s systems for gaining and recording consent for care and treatment were not always followed by staff. This meant it was not possible to say whether these people consented to the care and treatment they were receiving, or if they did not have capacity to consent to their care, that the Mental Capacity Act had been followed.

People who use the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff and management. Comments from people included, “ Staff treat us very well and come quickly when we call them ”, “This is the best place – I am very happy with the care provided” and “Everything is good here, the staff treat us very well”.

People told us they felt safe when receiving care and were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them.

Staff understood the needs of the people they were providing care for. People told us staff provided care with kindness and compassion.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled. They received a thorough induction when they started working at the home. They demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training relevant to their role, although the system to record training completed was not up to date. The registered manager was working to address this and prioritise refresher training for staff where it was needed.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People had regular group and individual meetings to provide feedback about their care and there was an effective complaints procedure. One person told us, “We would speak to (the registered manager) if there was anything we were not happy about – she would sort it out ”.

The provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care provided at Buckland Court. Feedback was encouraged and was used to make improvements to the service.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People told us staff respected them and encouraged their independence. We observed staff supported people appropriately, maintaining their dignity, including on the dementia care unit.

People said care workers met their needs. One person told us “they are very good, they look after you really well here.” A relative told us the care provided was the same, whatever the time of or day of the week they visited. An external healthcare professional described the staff as “very thorough” in how they provided care.

We saw the home was clean throughout. A relative described how it was “always kept clean and tidy.” We saw staff followed the provider’s policies on infection control. The provider performed regular audits on standards of infection control and hygiene, taking action if issues were identified.

Staff told us they were trained and supported in their roles. A new member of staff described how “I settled in straight away” because of the training and support they had been given.

The home had a system to enable people to raise complaints and concerns. Complaints and concerns were documented, including actions taken to address matters identified.

People told us they received good care and were respected by staff. One person said “they really care here” and another “you get care here, night or day”. A person with a disability told us staff encouraged them in being as independent as possible. We saw care workers looked after people in a safe manner, including when they needed assistance with moving. Staff addressed all people in a respectful and supportive way.

Staff received training and support in a wide range of areas, including safeguarding vulnerable people. One member of staff said “there’s lots of training” and another told us about the “copious amounts of training.”

The provider had systems for audit of their service. Where matters were identified, action was taken to address such deficits. People told us they felt able to bring up issues with the home manager and felt appropriate action would be taken. One person told us “I’d take it right to the top if I needed to”, if they didn’t like something.

People who were frail, including people at risk of pressure ulcers and dehydration were not consistently supported in the way they needed. This could put them at risk. Where people had dementia or had specific care requests, records were not consistently maintained to ensure interventions by staff happened in the person’s best interests.