The inspection took place on the 20, 21 September 2017 and 6 October 2017 and was unannounced.

Jubilee Lodge provides accommodation, personal care and nursing care for up to 36 people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities, sensory impairment or dementia. The service offers short breaks and respite care in the form of holidays. People were able to bring along companions if they wished. At the time of our inspection there were 33 people receiving a service, this included three independent carers/companions. The registered provider operates a residential volunteering programme so, in addition to the permanent staff, people were cared for and supported by volunteers.

The service has 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.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service was safe. The registered provider’s recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were appropriately assessed, managed and reviewed. Where required people's medicines were managed and stored safely. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe and to protect them from harm and abuse.

The service was effective. People were supported by staff that had the skills and experience needed to provide effective care. The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet and to access health care services when required.

The service was caring. Staff were kind and sensitive to people’s needs. Staff were observed providing good personalised care and it was evident they clearly understood people’s individual needs. Staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected and maintained at all times.

The service was responsive. People were involved in the planning and review of their care and support needs during their stay at the service. People were supported by staff to partake in a range of activities. Excursions and activities were tailored around people’s likes, choices and abilities. There was an effective complaints system in place and people told us that they were confident that any concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

The service was well-led. Staff, people and their companions spoke positively about the registered manager who was committed to providing an excellent person centred service; ensuring people enjoyed a positive and enjoyable holiday break. There were systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. People using the service and staff had the opportunity to say how they felt about the service and the service it provided. The registered manager was able to demonstrate how they measured and analysed the care and support provided to people, and how this ensured that the service was operating safely and was continually improving to meet people’s needs.

We considered our inspection findings to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? This is a summary of what we found based on our observations during the inspection. We looked at written records, including people's care records and staff recruitment records, and spoke with six people who were using the service. We also spoke at length with the general manager, the deputy manager, the provider's head of care and quality and five members of care staff.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with six people who used the service. One person, who was on the last day of their stay, said to us, "I have come a long way to stay here and I would come back. I've had a great time." Another person, who was a regular visitor to the service, said, "I'm very happy; it's great here." We observed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were appropriate, respectful and friendly and there was a pleasant and relaxed atmosphere throughout the service.

Is the service responsive?

The management team responded in an open, thorough and timely manner to complaints. Therefore people could be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary. Staff reported some problems they had experienced over the previous few months in providing a good service, but told us they had confidence in the new management team, who they felt were approachable and capable. They would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the service.

Is the service safe?

People were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening. People were protected by effective staff recruitment systems in relation to paid staff, however we found shortfalls in the recruitment processes for volunteers from overseas. This meant that people were not always wholly protected by safe and effective recruitment practices.

The provider had systems in place that ensured the safe receipt and storage of medicines. However, the provider did not have a sufficiently robust system for the administration of medicines to people when out on excursions. This meant that people were not always protected by safe and effective medication administration systems.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring safe and effective recruitment practices and providing safe and robust medication administration systems.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they received. No one raised any concerns with us. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable and motivated to provide good care and support to people. Each person's needs were clearly assessed prior to them coming to stay at the service. Care records indicated that care and support was delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Is the service well led?

There was a new management team in place at the service, all of whom had been in place a matter of weeks. Staff told us that they felt well supported by the new management team, there was a good team ethic and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff, that the service was continuously improving and that people were satisfied with the service they were receiving. It was in response to concerns raised through their monitoring processes that the provider took action to make changes to the management team.

During our inspection of Vitalise Jubilee Lodge on 5 November 2013, we saw evidence that staff had made every effort to identify and act on the wishes of people who used the service. One person told us, “They [staff] do exactly what you want. I have been fully involved in deciding how I spend my time here and about the care I need.”

We looked at records which showed that people’s care and support needs had been assessed and documented before they started their respite break. The assessments were reviewed again upon arrival at the service to ensure they were up to date. One person said, “We get spoilt here. We are very well looked after.”

The premises were safe, suitable and fit for purpose. Adequate emergency procedures were in place and the safety equipment we saw had been regularly checked and well maintained.

Suitable arrangements had been put in place to ensure staff were appropriately supported to perform their roles. One member of staff told us, “I feel very well supported. The new manager is very approachable and gives time to listen to us [staff].”

The provider had put systems in place to deal with complaints and concerns raised by people who used the service. Records showed that complaints received had been properly recorded and investigated.

People we spoke with when we visited the home on 16 October 2012 told us that they enjoyed their regular stays at the home. One person said, “Life is comfortable, it’s lovely.” They told us that during the time that they had been using the service it had improved slowly and was now excellent. Another person said they enjoyed their stays at the home because they were not pushed to do anything. “I don’t like going out too much. I like the peace and quiet of being on my own.”

A comprehensive assessment of each person’s needs and wishes was carried out before they stayed at the service for the first time. The assessment was then updated before each subsequent stay. The people we spoke with told us that they were involved in their assessments, and that staff asked them about any changes they would like before each visit.

People who use the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. The provider sent feedback forms to each person following their stay at the home, and these were analysed and actions taken to address any concerns. We saw the most recent report, which showed that actions had been taken to address concerns about the quality of food and a wish for shorter breaks.

People who use the service told us that the pre-admission assessment process was very good. They said their individual needs were asked about and met. General guest information is considered to be good by the people with whom we spoke. People said they felt encouraged to let staff know if they have any concerns and they find staff to be caring and well trained, although one said they felt that some staff appear to be overworked. People told us their medicines are handled well and the doses are correct and on time. The quality of the food and the choices available are very good we were told by people using the service. They also said bedrooms are clean and smell nice, although one guest said they did not like not having a shower curtain in their wet room as it meant that the entire bathroom got wet when they had a shower.

This inspection took place on 14 and 30 October 2015.

Vitalise Jubilee Lodge provides accommodation, personal care and nursing care for up to 36 people who have a physical disability, learning disability, sensory impairment or dementia. The service offers short breaks and respite care in the form of holidays. There were 18 people receiving a service on the day of our inspection.

A registered manager was 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.

At our inspection on 16 April 2014 we found that the provider was not meeting the requirements of the law in relation to the safe management of medicines and staff recruitment processes. An action plan was provided on 7 May 2014 and this confirmed the actions to be taken by the provider to achieve compliance. Our observations at this inspection showed that the improvements had been made.

Medicines were safely stored, recorded and administered in line with current guidance to ensure people received their prescribed medicines to meet their needs. Procedures were in place to ensure that staff organising medicines for people’s daily outings were not disturbed. Recruitment procedures were thorough and criminal history checks were in place for all people who volunteered to work at the service.

Staff were knowledgeable about identifying abuse and how to report it to safeguard people. Risk management plans were in place to support people to have as much independence as possible while keeping them safe. There were also processes in place to manage any risks in relation to the running of the service.

People had access healthcare support. People had choices of food and drinks that supported their nutritional or health care needs and their personal preferences.

People were supported by skilled staff who knew them well and were available in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs effectively. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and they found the staff to be friendly and caring. People were supported to participate in a wide range of social activities including community based outings.

Staff used their training effectively to support people. The manager understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff were aware of their role in relation to MCA and DoLS and how to support people so not to place them at risk of being deprived of their liberty.

Care records were regularly reviewed and showed that the person had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. They included people’s preferences and individual needs so that staff had clear information on how to give people the support that they needed. People told us that they received the care they required.

The service was well led; people knew the manager and found them to be approachable and available in the home. People living and working in the service had the opportunity to say how they felt about the home and the service it provided. Their views were listened to and actions were taken in response. The provider and registered manager had systems in place to check on the quality and safety of the service provided and to put actions plans in place where needed.