The inspection took place on 20 June 2017 and was unannounced.

Poplars provides care and accommodation for up to 34 people who may need assistance with personal care and may have care needs associated with living with dementia. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our visit there were 21people living in the service. There were three people living on the first floor, known as “Tree Tops.”

A registered manager was not in post at the service. 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. We met with the interim manager who going to apply to become the registered manager.

Staff supported people in a caring and compassionate manner. They spent time talking to them and developing positive relationships. Whilst activities were in place, we found these were not always person centred. Where people had more complex needs, such as dementia, they did not have always have access to pastimes tailored around their needs and interests. We have therefore made a recommendation about developing person centred activities.

Care plans had been developed which outlined people’s care needs. Improvements were underway to ensure these were more person centred and easier for staff to read. Reviews of care were not carried out and recorded effectively, however staff responded well to people’s changing needs. People knew how to complain and the manager responded well to concerns.

Risk was well managed and people were supported to remain safe. People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff used a new electronic system for administering medicines and people received their medicines as prescribed. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe.

Staff were well supported and worked well as a team for the benefit of the people they cared for. Staff knew how to meet people’s needs effectively. The manager knew where there were gaps in knowledge and skills and were supporting staff to access improved training.

The service was meeting the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Assessments of capacity had been undertaken and applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been made to the relevant local authority. Personalised decisions were made in people’s best interest, involving family and outside professionals as appropriate. Staff were skilled at supporting people to be involved in decisions about their care.

People had enough to eat and drink in line with their preferences. Staff monitored where people were at risk from losing weight or not drinking enough and any concerns were addressed promptly. Staff worked alongside health and social care professionals to support people to maintain good health and wellbeing.

The manager was committed to driving improvement and had responded well to concerns raised by outside professionals. There was an open and calm atmosphere where people and staff were encouraged to give feedback about the care at the service. There were a number of checks in place to monitor the quality of the service. These had been revised to provide a more robust oversight of the care people received.

The inspection took place on 4 March 2016 and was unannounced.

Poplars provides accommodation and personal care for up to 37 older people and people who may be living with dementia. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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 were safe because the management team and staff understood their responsibilities in managing risk and identifying abuse. People received safe care that met their assessed needs.

There were sufficient staff who had been recruited safely and who had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support in ways that people preferred.

The provider had systems in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely.

People’s health and social needs were managed effectively with input from relevant health care professionals and people had sufficient food and drink that met their individual needs.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. We found the provider was following the MCA code of practice.

People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well.

Staff respected people’s choices and took their preferences into account when providing support. People were encouraged to enjoy pastimes and interests of their choice and were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family so that they were not socially isolated.

There was an open culture and the registered manager encouraged and supported staff to provide care that was centred on the individual.

The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service and take the views and concerns of people and their relatives into account to make improvements to the service.

We spoke to the people living in the home. They told us that they were happy living in the home and that they had choice in their day to day lives and staff treated them with respect and listened to what they had to say. One person told us: 'I have a free choice about how I spend my time and I am as independent as I can be and the staff encourage that.'

People's care needs were met and the team had a proactive approach to the health and welfare of the people they cared for and supported.

The home was clean and tidy and the provider had infection control systems in place.

The staff were seen to be generally well trained and supervised and the manager provided a good level of support.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of services provided at the home and the people living at the home were regularly asked for their feedback.

As part of our inspection of Poplars we had conversations of various lengths with six people living in the home and with three relatives, who were visiting at the time of our inspection. People and the relatives we spoke with told us that they were happy with the standards of care in the home. One person told us that they were fairly independent and added “I can ask for help if I need it.” Another person said “If you want anything you’ve only got to ask.” People told us that the home was kept clean and they were happy with the standard of the food.

We carried out an unannounced inspection at Poplars on 07 November 2011. We had conversations of various lengths with seven people living in the home and with two relatives who were visiting at the time of our inspection. The feedback was generally very positive. People were complimentary about the staff, describing them as “friendly”, “kind” and “very helpful”. One person commented, “The staff are like family.” A relative told us “The staff are very good, there’s not much turnover of staff and that gives you confidence. I’m impressed with the manager, it’s a well organised home.”

People liked the food; one person said “You couldn’t get any better.” A relative was very complimentary about the “excellent” parties and the occasional entertainers but said that daily activities were “limited”. One person told us “There used to be a lot of games but they don’t have the staff now.”