The inspection took place on 15 July 2016 and was unannounced.

OSJCT The Poplars provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people or people living with a dementia type illness.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. This is usually to protect them. The management and staff understood their responsibility and made appropriate referrals for assessment. One person living at the service had their freedom lawfully restricted under a DoLS authorisation.

People felt safe and were cared for by kind and caring staff. People received their prescribed medicine safely from staff that had the skills to do so. Staff knew what action to take and who to report to if they were concerned about the safety and welfare of the people in their care.

People were treated as individuals, had a good quality of life and were enabled to follow their hobbies and pastimes. There were a wide range of activities provided both inside and outside the service. The service had formed strong links with the local community and people were involved with young people at all stages of their education. People told us that they looked forward to their visits.

People were given a choice of nutritious and seasonal home cooked meals. There were plenty of hot and cold drinks and snacks available between meals.

Staff were aware of people’s choices and preferences. Staff had the skills to undertake risk assessments and plan to ensure people’s personal, physical, social and psychological needs were met. Staff had access to professional development, supervision and feedback on their performance.

Staff knew how to access specialist professional help when needed. People had their healthcare needs identified and were able to access healthcare professionals such as their GP who visited weekly.

There were systems in place to support people and their relatives to make comments about the service or raise concerns about the care they received. People and their families told us that the manager and staff were approachable.

The registered provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements.

There were 36 people living at The Poplars on the day of our visit. The service provided care for older people or people living with a dementia.

At lunchtime we undertook a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI helps us to understand people’s perceptions of the care and treatment they receive when they are unable to tell us themselves. We have used this to find out about the lunchtime experience of people living with dementia.

We considered the findings of our inspection to answer questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our discussions with people using the service and the staff supporting them. We spoke with four people. We also looked at five care records.

Is the service safe?

The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA states that every adult has the right to make their own decisions about their care and treatment and must be assumed to have capacity to make them unless it is proved otherwise. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are part of the MCA. DoLS supports people in care homes and hospitals to be looked after in a way that does not unlawfully restrict their right to freedom.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistle blowing. We spoke with care staff who understood what was meant by abuse, knew how to identify signs of abuse and how to report their concerns.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and secure.

We saw that the service had a programme of regular audits and risk assessments to ensure people were cared for in a safe environment.

The service was safe, visibly clean and hygienic. We saw regular checks were made on the cleanliness of the building. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly and therefore did not put people at unnecessary risk. We observed regular maintenance was carried out, for example on electrical and fire equipment to ensure their safety.

Is the service effective?

We looked at the care files for five people. We saw pre-admission assessments had been undertaken. Their risk assessments and care plans had been completed on admission and were reviewed monthly. Any changes to their plan of care were recorded and signed by their key worker.

We spoke with relatives who told us they were involved in the admission process, and had regular meetings and annual reviews about the person’s care and treatment and were familiar with their care file.

We looked at care files for five people and saw they contained completed consent forms for having their photograph taken, sharing their personal information with other health and social care professionals and for immunisation against influenza.

Staff told us they received supervision. One member of staff said, “We talk about any training you would like to do, if you’re happy and if you have any problems.”

Is the service caring?

Records showed that when a person’s condition changed or deteriorated care staff called in the appropriate health professionals such as their GP or dentist.

We saw people were supported to maintain their independence and contribute to life in the service. For example, after the morning group activity we observed one person set the dining tables for lunch. We were shown the grounds and found people had been involved in planting tomatoes and feeding and watering them.

Is the service responsive?

We saw care staff had access to equipment to be used in an emergency such as a first aid box. Care staff told us what actions they would take if a person’s condition deteriorated.

We saw that the provider had contingency plans in place in event of an emergency situation.

Is the service well led?

All the staff we spoke with told us the manager and head of care were very supportive. One staff member said, “Leadership is good, XX and YY are approachable. Can go to them about anything and they listen.” Another staff member told us, “It’s very good; my time working here has flown by.”

People and their relatives were involved in regular meetings and had access to a monthly newsletter. The most recent newsletter had information on the homes involvement in the National Care Home Open Day on 20 June.

Before people received any care or treatment we saw they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. One person said, "They always ask me before they take me for my shower."

We observed staff interact with people at lunchtime. People were treated as individuals and staff spoke to them with dignity and respect. We saw people were given a choice of where to sit and what to have for their meal.

We looked at care files. We saw people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed and people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff were allowed to work in the home.

People were made aware of the complaints system. Information was provided in a format which met people's needs

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an expert by experience; people who have experience of using the services and who can provide that perspective.

We conducted a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI 2). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

During our visit to The Poplars on 20 July 2012 the people we spoke with told us they were happy living there and were well looked after. They said staff treated them with dignity and respect.