About the service: Phil Mead House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 28 people. At the time of inspection, 28 people were using the service

People’s experience of using this service: People continued to receive safe care. Staff understood safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse and incidents of concern. Risk assessments were in place to manage risks within people’s lives, whilst also promoting their independence.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out. Staffing support matched the level of assessed needs within the service during our inspection.

Staff training was provided to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles. Specialist training was provided to make sure that people’s needs were met and they were supported effectively.

Staff were well supported by the registered manager, and had one to one supervisions. The staff we spoke with were all positive about the senior staff and management in place.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided. 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 supported this practice.

Staff continued to treat people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them. Care plans reflected people’s likes and dislikes, and staff spoke with people in a friendly manner.

People were involved in their own care planning and could contribute to the way in which they were supported. People and their family were involved in reviewing their care and making any necessary changes.

A process was in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns. Concerns were acted upon promptly and lessons were learned through positive communication.

The service continued to be well managed. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken and improvements were made when required.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 14/03/2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

When we visited Phil Mead House we spoke with the manager, care staff, two visitors and six people who lived there. We were told there were 24 people in the home on the day of our visit.

We looked at five outcomes to answer the following questions. Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you would like to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People’s needs were assessed before people moved to Phil Mead House to make sure their needs could be met.

Care staff we spoke with told us they used people’s care plans to make sure they understood how to deliver care in a safe and appropriate way.

We saw prescribed medicines were given to people when they needed them.

All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Phil Mead House.

We saw there was a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 policy in place. The manager understood her responsibilities under the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We were told that no DoLS applications had been made. We saw records that showed staff had received some training in mental capacity awareness.

Is the service effective?

People had an individual care plan which explained what their needs were. People told us they had been involved in their care assessment. They told us their contributions had been listened to and included in their plan of care.

People had access to health care professionals who visited the home on a weekly basis to support people’s health care needs.

We found staff had received the necessary training and supervision to enable them to provide safe and appropriate care for people.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff were kind, caring and patient in their approach towards people. We saw when staff carried out care tasks they treated people with dignity and respect.

We spoke with two relatives and six people who used the service. We asked them their views of the staff. They told us, “I can’t sing their praises enough.” “Excellent, all very pleasant.” “I can’t speak highly enough of them.”

Is the service responsive?

We saw regular reviews of people’s care plans were carried out. This enabled changes in people’s needs to be identified and acted upon. We saw care plans reflected people’s changing needs.

We saw when staff identified health concerns these were promptly followed up with a health professional. This meant people promptly received any medical treatment required to maintain their health.

People told us they felt confident in raising any concerns with the manager and felt they would be addressed. All of the people we spoke with were satisfied with the service they received.

Is the service well led?

We found the service had an effective quality monitoring system in place. We saw the provider carried out monthly quality monitoring visits to the home. This was to check the standards of care and services provided at the home were in accordance with the organisations policies and procedures. We saw reports of the visits were completed which contained action points for the manager where appropriate.

We saw 21 people had participated in a quality satisfaction survey carried out in December 2013. The outcome report showed a high level of satisfaction with the service.

We visited Phil Mead on 18 July 2013 to follow up on improvements that we identified were needed to records management during our inspection on 30 April 2013.

We found during this visit that action had been taken to address the improvements needed.

The manager told us that records management was an area that needed on-going monitoring and review. We saw audit processes in place to enable this to happen.

We spoke with four people living at Phil Mead House and a visitor. We saw that people looked well cared for. People told us they were happy with the care and support they were receiving. Comments included: “The care is good.” “You get all that you want, you just press the buzzer and they come.” “They are very good at summoning the doctor as soon as there is a need for it. The same with district nurses. It’s better here than at home.”

We observed that staff were friendly and respectful towards people and supported people to exercise their independence. People we spoke with were positive about the care staff. They told us: “They are all very good, very kind.” “Staff are very good, friendly and all very kind, it’s home from home.”

We found that some social activities and entertainment took place. This included exercise sessions, quizzes, bingo and singing entertainment. People also had access to Holy Communion.

People were positive in their comments about the food provided. People were given a choice of two main meals. This included a hot meal or a salad.

There were quality monitoring systems in place to enable people to voice their opinions about the care and services provided. This included an annual satisfaction survey and monthly 'resident' meetings. The provider was also undertaking regular quality monitoring visits to ensure standards of quality and safety were being maintained.

We spoke with seven people living at Phil Mead House and three visitors. We saw that people looked well cared for and people told us they were happy with the care and support they were receiving. Comments included: “I am very happy here. They do anything you want.” “I think it’s a lovely home.”

Visitors were very complimentary of the home. They told us: “Very very good, one of the best in Coventry.” “Communication with family is fantastic.” “I always feel confident that X is in good hands.”

We observed that staff were friendly and respectful towards people and supported people to exercise their independence. People we spoke with were positive about the care staff. They told us: “Nice, no problems.” “Very good, very kind. I think they work very hard I don’t like to ask them to do too much.”

People were able to participate in some social activities and outings and people told us they could choose how to spend their day. We saw that some people chose to stay in their rooms and read or watch television and others liked to sit in the lounge. People told us that social activities were provided and they occasionally had outings. They told us: We do have some, a regular monthly one is physical fun. X comes once a week with quiz books. On a Monday a lady comes to do extend stretching exercises.” “We went a ride out yesterday, it was a break.”

People told us that they enjoyed the meals being provided and we saw that the main meal looked appetising. They told us: “The food is very good, there is plenty to eat. It’s usually a salad if you don’t want the main meal.” “It’s more or less a set meal.” “Very good”.

We saw that people had an opportunity to voice their opinions about the care and services being provided within annual satisfaction surveys and monthly ‘resident’ meetings. Areas for action were being identified by the manager as appropriate.

The inspection took place on 4 and 5 November 2015 and it was unannounced.

Phil Mead House provides personal care for up to 25 older people. On the day of our inspection there were 25 people living in the home.

The home had a manager who was in the process of registering with us. 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 told us they felt safe and would feel at ease to raise any concerns with staff or the manager if they needed to. Staff knew how to protect people against the risk of abuse and had completed training in safeguarding people so they knew how to recognise abuse and poor practice.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff told us appointments with health professionals such as the GP and district nurses were arranged to support people’s health needs when required.

Staff had access to ongoing training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to meet people’s needs and people felt their care needs were being met. Staff had a limited understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and how these impacted on people’s care. However, we did not see this had resulted in any significant impact on people’s care.

People were provided with nutritious meals that looked appetising and which overall, they enjoyed. Arrangements were in place to support people with any special dietary needs and support when needed.

People felt they were not always involved in decisions about their care. Entertainment and social activities were provided periodically but people did not find these were always in accordance with their wishes and interests. The manager told us about plans to address this.

There were suitable numbers of trained staff on duty to meet people’s care needs. There were periods of time when staff were particularly busy which meant they had limited time to interact with people. Overall people considered staff to be caring and available when they needed them.

There was clear leadership within the home. The provider carried out regular checks on the quality of care and services to identify any areas that required improvement. People were encouraged to participate in ‘resident’ meetings so they could be involved in discussions related to the running of the home.