This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 16 August 2017. Park House Residential Care Home (referred to as Park House throughout the report) is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 28 older people. On the day of the inspection there were 26 people living in the home.

The service had a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission in January 2016. They had previously been the deputy manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers ('the provider'), 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.

At our last comprehensive inspection carried out in June 2015 we found the service was meeting all the regulations we reviewed.

People told us they felt safe in Park House. They were cared for by staff who were kind, caring and respectful of their dignity and privacy.

Care records needed to be improved to ensure they included more detailed guidance for staff to follow in order to meet people’s needs in a safe and appropriate manner. Some staff did not always use best practice when supporting people to mobilise within the home.

Staff had completed training in safeguarding adults and knew the correct action to take if they witnessed or suspected abuse. Staff told us they would be confident to use the whistleblowing policy that was in place should they witness poor practice in the service.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs, although communication between staff could be improved to avoid people waiting for the support they wanted. Most staff had been safely recruited although one person only had one reference on their personnel file; this was not in accordance with the provider’s own recruitment policy which stated staff would not start work at Park House until two references had been received.

Some improvements needed to be made to ensure people always received their medicines as prescribed and that medicines were stored at the correct temperature to ensure their effectiveness.

People were cared for in a safe and clean environment. Procedures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection. Systems were in place to deal with any emergency that could affect the provision of care, such as a failure of the electricity or gas supply. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place to help ensure people who used the service received the support they required in the event of an emergency at the home.

Records showed staff had received the necessary induction, training and supervision to help them to deliver effective care. The registered manager completed regular observations of staff in order to help ensure they were competent in delivering the care people required.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The registered manager had taken appropriate action to safeguard the rights of people who were unable to consent to their care in Park House. Six people’s care arrangements were authorised under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) at the time of this inspection.

Systems were in place to help ensure people’s health and nutritional needs were met. Staff worked in cooperation with health professionals to help ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment.

People were provided with the opportunity to engage in a range of activities to promote their well-being.

People were encouraged to provide feedback on the care they received in Park House. The registered manager met with people on an individual basis to discuss whether they were happy with the way staff supported them.

Staff told us they enjoyed working in Park House. They told us the registered manager and owners were approachable and supportive. Regular staf

The service is registered to provide personal care for 28 older people who require personal care. On the day of the inspection 27 people resided within the home.

We last inspected this service in April 2014 when the service met all the standards we inspected.

The service had a registered manager. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We looked at staff files and the training matrix. We found staff were robustly recruited, trained in topics relevant to the service and were in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection.

People told us the food served at the home was good and they were offered choices about what they ate.

We found the administration of medication was safe.

Staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) so they should know when an application needs to be made and how to submit one. Several applications had been made using the correct procedures and personnel.

Electrical and gas equipment was serviced and maintained. There was a system for repairing faults or replacing equipment.

There were individual risk assessments to keep people safe but they did not restrict people who used the service to access the community. People had an emergency evacuation plan and there was a business continuity plan to keep people safe in an emergency.

We toured the building and found the home to be warm, clean and fresh smelling. Furniture and equipment was suitable to the needs of people who used the service and there was a homely atmosphere.

Plans of care were individual to each person and had been regularly reviewed to keep staff up to date with any changes to people’s needs. People’s choices and preferred routines had been documented for staff to provide individual care.

People who used the service were able to join in activities and we observed people being taken out for a walk by staff and their relatives...

We observed that staff were caring and protected people’s privacy and dignity when they gave personal care.

Policies and procedures were updated and management audits helped managers check on the quality of the service.

People who used the service were able to voice their opinions and tell staff what they wanted in meeting and by completing surveys. People who used the service were also able to raise any concerns if they wished.

We saw the manager analysed incidents, accidents and compliments to improve the service or minimise risks.

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. They helped answer our five questions; 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 observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This should help reduce the risks to people and help the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Senior staff had been trained to recognise and understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people using the service would be safeguarded as required.

The registered manager set the staff rotas and took into account people’s care needs when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people’s needs should always be appropriately met.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

Visitors confirmed they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed care workers showing patience and giving encouragement when supporting people. People commented, "I don't have any concerns. I leave here and feel confident that they are looking after X".

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had access to a range of activities both in the home and local community which were accessed on a regular basis.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a consistent and joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We looked at the care records of four people living at the home. Care plans were person centred. Peoples' preferences were noted so it was clear that discussion with them had taken place. The care records were regularly reviewed and updated. They contained care plans and risk assessments for all aspects of care and support. The Manager was creating individual activity profiles for people to try and enable them to pursue their particular interests.

The home had a policy in place about safeguarding vulnerable adults and measures were in place to ensure staff received appropriate training. Since the last inspection an internal review of staff understanding of safeguarding had taken place. A member of staff we spoke with confirmed their awareness of the policy and was able to correctly explain the process to be followed.

There was a clear line management structure in place. Over the past year a new training and personal development strategy had been introduced for staff. Management had plans to audit and review the success of the system at the end of the first year. This was to include an opportunity for staff to provide their feedback. Staff meetings for junior and senior staff were held regularly and staff were invited to contribute to the agenda.

We saw evidence that systems were in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of services provided at the home.

We spoke with three people who lived at Park House Residential Care Home, saw written feedback from relatives, and saw feedback given in satisfaction questionnaires that had been completed in April 2012.

People told us that they had regular meetings at the home to give their opinion about the activities that were provided and discuss any concerns. People said "They really look after us here and they give us good care" and another said, about the activities provided, "They give you choices and you can please yourself, which is great. If you don't want to be bothered you don't have to".

Feedback from questionnaires included "The atmosphere's always calm and welcoming",

"I love it here. The carers are very good" and "I'm satisfied with all aspects of my care".