This inspection took place on 17 December 2018 and was unannounced. Red Court care community 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. It provides accommodation for older people and those with mental health conditions or dementia. The home can accommodate up to 49 people in one adapted building. The home is divided into two units, both on ground floor level. At the time of our inspection there were 32 people living in the home.

At the time of our inspection there was not 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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

This was the first inspection for this home since registration in September 2017. At this inspection we found breaches of regulation 18, regulation 12 and regulation 17. There were insufficient numbers of suitably skilled staff. The provider had failed to put systems and processes in place to ensure the safe delivery of care and improvement of quality. A system was not in place to carry out suitable quality checks and action plans were not always in place to address issues identified.

Risks to people’s safety had not been consistently assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected.

Guidance was not in place to ensure people received their medicines when required. Processes were not in place to manage medicines safely. Where people required their medicines in food arrangements had not been put in place to ensure the method of administration did not affect the efficacy of the medicine.

People were not consistently treated with dignity and respect. Arrangements were in not place to ensure staff received training to provide care appropriately and effectively. People were not helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People had access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support.

People, their relatives and members of staff had been consulted about making improvements in the service. However, actions were not always taken. There were arrangements for working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.

People told us that they received good care. Sufficient background checks had been completed before new staff had been appointed according to the provider’s policy.

Where people were unable to make decisions, arrangements were in place to ensure decisions were made in people's best interests. Best interest’s decisions were specific to the decisions which were needed to be made.

There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. The environment was clean.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were usually treated with kindness and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to be involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. People had access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

Information was provided to people in an accessible manner. People had been supported to access a range of activities. The registered manager recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. Formal complaints were responded to according to the provider’s policy to improve the quality of care.

Arrangements were