The unannounced inspection took place on 8 February 2018. At the last inspection in May 2016 the service met all legal requirements and was rated “Good”. During this inspection the service remains “Good”.

Pinewood is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Pinewood accommodates 54 people across five separate units, each of which has separate adapted facilities. One of the units specialises in providing care to people living with dementia. On the day of our visit there were 54 people using the service.

On the day of our visit the registered manager took us around. 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 they trusted staff who looked after them. They told us they were treated with dignity and respect and that their privacy was respected.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of the guidelines in place to recognise and report abuse. The registered manger ensured all safeguarding actions were completed and lessons were learnt.

Medicines were managed safely by staff that had been assessed as competent.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidelines were followed. Risks to people were monitored and appropriate risks assessments were in place and known by staff in order to support people safely.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs most times. We found robust recruitment methods in place to ensure only staff that had undergone the necessary checks were employed.

Staff were supported by means of supervision and regular meetings. They were supported to develop further if they wished to progress within their career. They were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and how they applied it in practice.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet that met their individual preferences. They were supported to access health care services where required in order to maintain their health.

Activities were based on people’s preferences and included regular outings to various places of interest and pet therapy and entertainers.

People told us they were able to complain and felt their complaints were listened to.

Care plans were person centred. However, we found they were not always reviewed in a timely manner and made a recommendation to ensure there were robust systems in place to ensure all care records were up to date and completed properly.

People, their relatives and staff thought the service was well led by an approachable registered manager. There were robust systems in place to ensure the quality of care delivered was monitored and improved.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 19 April 2016. The service met the five legal requirements at our last inspection on 3 June 2014.

Pinewood is a care home for 54 people living with dementia. It has a large garden area with a café mural. It is spread over five units. On the day of our visit there were 52 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 that they were treated with dignity and respect and that they felt safe living at Pinewood. They were aware of how to make a complaint if the need arose.

Care delivered was responsive to people’s needs. Care plans were comprehensive and contained individual likes and dislikes and were used by staff to actively engage with people.

Activities were ongoing throughout the day and were based on people’s personal preferences. Regular outings, birthday celebrations and outdoor activities occurred to keep people occupied and engaged.

Staff completed comprehensive training. All new staff completed an induction program including a period of shadowing . shadowing. They were supported by regular supervision and annual appraisal. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it applied in practice.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food according to their preferences. Where needed people were referred to appropriate health care professionals in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle. In addition people were supported to take their medicines at the right time by staff that had been trained and assessed as competent to administer medicine safely.

Staff were aware of how to safeguard people from preventable harm and had attended safeguarding training. They were aware of the procedures to follow in an emergency in order to prevent harm.

There were robust recruitment practices to ensure that only staff that had gone through the appropriate checks and had the appropriate qualifications and experience were employed. However, we noted that disclosure checks were not always refreshed once staff were employed.

Staffing was based on people’s dependency and both staff and people told us that any absences were filled by other regular staff members to promote continuity of care.

People, relatives and staff described the management as open and approachable. There was an active effort made to ensure that people and their relatives were involved in care planning and activities that went on within the service.

The inspection 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 who used the service, some of their relatives, the staff who supported 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?

We saw people who used the service treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. 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 reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. The provider had procedures in place to deal with emergencies to ensure the safety and welfare of the people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them and their relatives where possible and they were involved in discussing any changes to their care plan on a monthly basis. Any special needs such as use of equipment and dietary requirements had been identified in the care plans. All the staff we spoke with felt supported in their roles and had undertaken relevant training to support the knowledge required to operate safe practices and meet people's needs.

Staff training had been put in place to support the needs of the people who used the service, for example, specialist dementia training. The provider had made suitable arrangements to work in cooperation with others to ensure appropriate care took place.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed respect and demonstrated a caring nature. Feedback from relatives was extremely positive as regards the care given by the team. A relative said, "Staff respond quickly to any needs." People’s preferences, interests, and life history had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy. We looked at the complaints policy but there had been no complaints made since our last inspection. Staff we spoke with were aware of the complaints policy and procedures. We were reassured that people would have their complaints investigated and action taken as necessary. The provider responded to people's needs, for example, organising a regular hairdresser to attend the home.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way and continuous way. The service had a good working relationship with other care providers such as the local GP and district nurse team. The quality of the service was continuingly monitored by both the manager and the provider. Any actions to make improvements were taken swiftly. Staff told us they enjoyed their job and felt well supported by the managers. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

People we spoke with told us they were treated with dignity and respect and that they were able to make choices over their daily lives. One person said “I can go to bed when I want” and “we can choose what we have for breakfast.” We observed staff interacting with people in a polite and friendly manner during the course of our inspection. People told us they were happy with the care and support provided by the service. One person said “I think it’s very good. They look after us well.” We found that care plans were in place which set out how to support people and meet their assessed needs. Records showed that people had access to health care professionals.

We found that medications were stored and administered appropriately. However, not all controlled drugs were properly recorded. People told us they were happy with the physical environment of the home, and we found checks had been carried out to help ensure the premises were safe. Robust staff recruitment procedures were in place which included carrying out Disclosure and Barring Service checks on staff. This is a check to see if the person had any criminal convictions or were on any list that barred them from working with children or vulnerable adults.

People said staff ‘’Carry out our care in private, and even if they are busy they always have time for us’’. Each person had their own room which they could lock if they wished. Risk assessments were complete and people had been consulted in the development of their own care plans.

There is a full time activities and the specialised dementia unit has a range of activities that have been designed for people with cognitive impairment.

People told us they enjoyed the meals they had they said ‘’The food is always hot and there is lots of it’’. People told us they had settled into living at this home they had no concerns about the care and attention they received. Relatives spoken to felt the same one person said; ‘’I can sleep at night now, every day I leave here I know I made the right decision’’.

Staff understood what could be classified as abuse and there were detailed policies and procedures in place that staff could refer to. Staff receive regular training and get the opportunity to attend external courses supported by the provider.

People that live at the home are invited to attend residents meetings and their families are also welcome. Records were reviewed regularly with changes and events documented as they occur.

People living at Pinewood Care Home told us that they had a positive experience. We were told that staff were kind and supportive. People said that they enjoyed the services provided, such as the activities, the quality of the food and the homely, personalised environment. Some people were not able to clearly express their views due to having dementia. We undertook a short observation on the unit for people with dementia, which demonstrated that staff had good skills for communicating and that the service provided specialist recreational equipment to offer stimulation and enjoyment.