This inspection took place on 12 July 2018 and was unannounced.

Pilgrim Wood Residential Home is a ‘care home’. 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. The home can accommodate a maximum of 35 people, some of whom may be living with dementia or have mobility and health needs. There were 29 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 had not been sufficiently protected from abuse. Following a disclosure by a member of staff in May 2018, an investigation took place into the actions of a member of staff. The investigation identified that six people had been affected by verbal abuse. The member of staff responsible for the abuse was dismissed.

The registered manager acted appropriately following the disclosure, notifying the police, the local authority and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The registered manager also took appropriate action regarding the member of staff who had abused people. However, the member of staff making the disclosure had not reported the abuse as soon as they became aware of it, which had extended the time during which people were at risk of abuse.

Following these incidents, the registered manager had informed people and their relatives of the events that had occurred and the action that had been taken as a result. The registered manager had also reminded staff at a team meeting of their responsibility to report any concerns they had about abuse immediately.

Medicines were managed safely but some documentation relating to medicines management could not be located on the day. We have made a recommendation about this.

People’s care was not always provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Assessments had not been carried out to determine whether people had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Where decisions had been made by others about people’s care, there was no evidence that an appropriate process had been followed to ensure decisions had been made in people’s best interests.

The provider and management did not always communicate effectively or maintain an adequate oversight of the service. Some relatives were dissatisfied with the provider’s communication with them about administrative issues, such as invoicing. Staff and relatives told us the registered manager was available if they needed to speak with them but said the registered manager did not spend much time ‘on the floor’.

The feedback we received indicated that there had been issues between the management and some staff in recent months. We were told that some staff had displayed negative attitudes in their work which affected people’s experience of care. Although these staff had left and been replaced by staff with a positive approach, the registered manager had not monitored improvements by observing how staff engaged with people and how they interacted with colleagues.

Quality monitoring checks were carried out but were not always up-to-date or effective in identifying shortfalls. Monthly audits of falls, medicines and infection control were overdue. Previous medicines audits had failed to identify that there were no protocols in place regarding medicines prescribed ‘as required’ (PRN) or that staff had not followed best practice guidance when transcribing verbal instructions.

There were enough staff on each shift to meet people’s needs. People told us they did not have to wait for care when they needed i

The inspection took place on 22 June 2016 and was unannounced.

Pilgrim Wood Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 35 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 34 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe because there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs. Risks to people had been assessed and staff had taken action to reduce these risks. There were plans in place to ensure that people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency. Health and safety checks were carried out regularly and medicines were managed safely. The provider made appropriate checks on staff before they started work, which helped to ensure only suitable applicants were employed. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and were aware of the provider’s whistle-blowing policy.

People were supported by staff that had the skills and experience needed to provide effective care. Staff had induction training when they started work and ongoing refresher training in core areas. They had access to regular supervision, which provided opportunities to discuss their performance and training needs.

Staff knew the needs of the people they supported and provided care in a consistent way. Staff shared information effectively, which meant that any changes in people’s needs were responded to appropriately. People were supported to stay healthy and to obtain medical treatment if they needed it. Staff monitored people’s healthcare needs and took appropriate action if they became unwell.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s best interests had been considered when decisions that affected them were made and applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe.

People enjoyed the food provided and could have alternatives to the menu if they wished. People’s nutritional needs had been assessed when they moved into the service and were kept under review. Staff ensured that people who required assistance to eat and drink received this support.

Staff were kind and sensitive to people’s needs. People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them. Relatives said that staff provided compassionate care and were professional and caring. The atmosphere in the service was calm and relaxed and staff spoke to people in a respectful yet friendly manner. Staff understood the importance of maintaining confidentiality and of respecting people’s privacy and dignity. Relatives told us they were made welcome when they visited. People had opportunities to take part in activities at the service and to go out to local places of interest.

People who lived at the service and their relatives told us their views were encouraged and listened to. Any complaints received had been managed appropriately.

The registered manager provided good leadership for the service. Relatives told us the service was well run and that the registered manager was open and approachable. They said the registered manager had always resolved any concerns they had. Staff told us the registered manager provided good leadership and promoted an open culture at work. They said they were encouraged to give their views about how the service could be improved.

The provider had an effective quality assurance system to ensure that key areas of the service were monitored effectively. Records relating to people’s care were accurate, u

When we inspected this service on 28 September 2012 we found the provider was not meeting the standards of quality and safety for respecting and involving people, care and welfare, recruitment of staff, staffing, supporting workers, statement of purpose, assessing and monitoring the quality of the service and records. We set compliance actions and the provider sent us an action plan which detailed how and by when they would meet those actions and achieve compliance.

This latest inspection on 9 May 2013 was carried out in order to check whether the provider had taken action to achieve compliance. We found the provider had taken the actions required to achieve compliance.

The home provides care for up to 35 people and we spoke with eight people using the service and two relatives who were visiting.

People who used the service told us the staff were kind and caring, they generally liked the food and were offered choices. The three people we asked with regards to the care plans said the staff had consulted them about their care and they had been asked their opinions. One person said "The staff are very kind; they keep me and my relative informed about my care and health; I can't speak more highly of it here."

People told us there had been a range of activities they had been able to choose to participate in.

The staff we spoke with told us they had been trained and supported to carry out their roles and the staff records we saw confirmed this.

People who used the service were very complimentary about the staff and the registered manager regarding the way that they looked after them.

They were complimentary about the food but several people said they would like more to do.

People who use the service told us that staff always respected their privacy and dignity but some people said they thought there were not enough staff to meet their needs.

Several comments received from people and a visitor to the home said “I like to be waited on it is a nice place to live” and “it’s an amazing home and we are very pleased with it. Our relative is very happy here and well looked after.”

People told us that they didn’t know anything about their care plans and one person commented that the communication in the service between staff should be improved.