Prior Bank House is a converted Victorian House with a purpose built extension to the rear. The home is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for a maximum of 32 older people some of whom are living with dementia. There were 27 people using the service at the time of our inspection. It is part of a group of care homes operated by Anchor Trust. Prior Bank House is set in a quiet location, surrounded by a mature garden. It is situated in the residential area of Nether Edge in Sheffield and is close to local shops and public transport.

At the last inspection on the April 2015 the service was rated Good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports’ link for Prior Bank House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At this unannounced inspection on the 12 December 2017 we found the service remained ‘Good’. The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

The service did not have a registered manager. However the registered provider had appointed a new manager who had been in the post since August 2017 and had submitted an application to CQC to register. 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 protected from abuse and improper treatment. The registered provider had systems in place to respond to allegations of abuse to keep people safe and staff understood their role in safeguarding people.. Risks to people were reduced as staff assessed risks and put management plans in place for staff to follow. Risks relating to medicines management were reduced as staff stored, administered, recorded and disposed of medicines safely.

The registered provider had processes in place to learn and improve when things went wrong. The registered provider had robust systems to review any accidents and incidents to ensure people received the right support and that learning was shared across the organisation.

At the time of the inspection there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives spoken with told us they thought there were sufficient staff on duty. Recruitment procedures ensured the right staff were employed to meet people’s needs safely.

People received care in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the registered provider applied for and followed authorisations to deprive people of their liberty as part of keeping them safe. The registered provider supported staff to understand their responsibilities in line with the MCA by providing regular training. We observed staff took account of people’s individual needs and preferences while supporting them. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Staff were aware of peoples nutritional needs and people were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services.

People had the benefit of a culture and management style that was inclusive and caring. People were treated with respect. People spoken with and their relatives told us staff were kind, considerate and caring. Staff spoken with able to tell us how they respected people’s preferences and ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained.

People's care plans contained sufficient detail to be reliable for staff to follow in caring for people. The registered provider regularly reviewed people's care plans so information remained current. People were supported to participate in activities the service provided, although some people felt a wider range of activities could be developed. The registered provider told us they would review the activi

Some people living at the home were not able to verbally communicate their views and experiences to us. Due to this we used a formal way to observe people at this inspection to help us understand how their needs were supported. We call this the 'Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI).

Records checked showed that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

People that we could communicate with told us that they were happy living at the home and that they were very satisfied with the care they received. People said, "They [care workers] are very kind to me. They are all kind with a sense of humour. Some of them are friendly which makes life easier. We all have choice, we listen to music and watch TV and choose what time to get up."

The provider had a satisfactory recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were appropriately employed.

The provider had an appropriate system in place for gathering, recording and evaluating information about the quality and safety of care the service provided.

People who we were able to communicate with told us that they were happy living at the home and that they were satisfied with the care they received. People said, "we get a lot of care and attention," "It's a wonderful home," "I am very happy and settled" and "I wouldn't want to be anywhere else."

Throughout our inspection we noted that staff spoke with people in a kind and respectful way and had a clear knowledge of people’s individual likes and preferences. People told us, "the staff know what we like and it's all there when we need it" and "this is a small friendly home and the staff know us very well."

People told us that they felt safe living in the home and if they had concerns they would speak with a family member or a member of the staff team.

A number of staff we spoke with were positive about the fact that they were given opportunities for further training and personal development. A number of staff had undertaken, or were currently undertaking National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ’s).

Sheffield Local Authority Contracting and Commissioning had recently carried out a full monitoring visit. They told us that upon confirmation of training delivered, the home was signed off as compliant and that they had no current concerns about the home.

Our inspection of Prior Bank House was unannounced and was undertaken on 23 and 24 April 2015.

Prior Bank House was last inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in September 2013 and was found to be meeting regulations relating to respecting and involving people who use services, care and welfare of people who use services, meeting people’s nutritional needs, assessing and monitoring the quality of the service and records.

Prior Bank House is a large converted Victorian house which provides accommodation for up to 31 older people who require nursing or personal care, some of whom are living with dementia. The home was fully occupied at the time of our inspection.

Each bedroom had an en-suite shower room. There were also shared bathrooms and toilets situated throughout the home. Accommodation was provided over two floors, accessed by stairs and a lift. There is a large lounge which has a smaller lounge attached to it. There was also another small lounge where people can spend time with those important to them. The dining room was situated at the back of the home and overlooks a pleasant garden area.

A registered manager was 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 felt safe living at Prior Bank House. For example, one person told us, “I feel safe and very content here.” We found that there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Conversations with staff and the registered manager demonstrated that they were aware of local safeguarding procedures and had the necessary knowledge to ensure that vulnerable adults were safeguarded from abuse.

Our conversations with the manager, staff and our review of records evidenced that the home had an effective process to ensure that employees were of good character and held the necessary checks and qualifications to work at the home. Staff were provided with a range of training to help them carry out their roles and received regular supervision and an annual appraisal.

People told us that they received their medicines on time. Our observation of the tea-time medication round, together with our review of records provided evidence that medicines were safely administered, recorded and stored.

Equipment within the home was clean, well maintained and was fit for purpose. Appropriate signs and adaptations were in place to promote people’s independence within the home and support and orientate people living with dementia. For example, there was a dementia friendly lift which played calming music and was spacious, brightly lit and contained items to orientate people such as a large clock.

People’s physical health needs were monitored and clearly documented. Referrals were made when needed to health professionals.

There were sufficient care staff to meet people’s nutritional needs. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and food preferences. Our observation of a mealtime, conversation with the cook and our review of nutritional records evidenced that people received a choice of suitable, healthy, homemade food, snacks and drinks throughout the day.

Conversations with staff and observations throughout our visit showed us that staff offered and involved people in a range of day to day decisions. The registered manager and members of staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The correct procedures were followed in order to meet the DoLS and ensure that people’s rights were protected.

Our observations together with conversations with people and those important to them provided evidence that the service was caring. We saw that staff across the home spent time sitting and talking with people. Members of staff spoken with on the day of our inspection had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

We found that Prior Bank House acknowledged and provided a broad range of meaningful activities to support people to maintain existing interests as well as access differing activities and community resources.

Staff were positive about the registered manager and the way in which she led the service. They told us that the registered manager was always around, was approachable and had made a number of improvements since being in post.

A range of regular scheduled and unscheduled checks were undertaken to monitor the quality of the service. People, their friends and family and staff were encouraged to provide feedback by attending meetings and completing surveys about the care and support provided at Prior Bank House.