This inspection was unannounced and took place on 19 May 2016. At our last inspection in December 2014 the essential standards of quality and safety under the HSCA 2008 were found to be met.

Ridgewood House Care Home provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 21 older adults, including some people who may be living with dementia. At the time of our visit, there were 20 people living at the service. There was a registered manager at this 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 felt safe in the home, which was kept clean and well maintained. The provider’s staffing arrangements helped to make sure that people were safe and received the care they needed at the time they needed it.

People were protected from harm and abuse. Potential risks to people’s safety were taken into account in the planning and delivery of their care and people’s medicines were being safely managed.

People and relatives were happy with the care provided. Staff understood and followed people’s care plans to support people to maintain and improve their health in consultation with relevant external health professionals when required.

People received food and drinks they enjoyed, which met their dietary needs and choices. Staff understood people’s dietary requirements and provided people with the support they needed to eat and drink.

Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to obtain people’s consent for their care. People were supported as far as possible to make their own decisions about their care and treatment and helped to do so when needed. This was done in a way that was lawful and which met their rights and best interests.

Staff received an appropriate introduction to their role before they provided care. People received care from staff who were provided with the necessary training and supported to enable them to perform their role and responsibilities for this.

Staff were consistently kind and caring and established positive relationships with people and their families. Staff valued people, treated them with respect and promoted their rights, choice and independence.

Staff understood family and friends were important to people and ensured they were appropriately involved in people’s care. People were informed and supported to access independent advocacy services if they needed someone to speak up about their care on their behalf.

People’s care was personalised, inclusive and timely. Staff acted promptly when people needed assistance and they understood and communicated with people in a way that was meaningful to them.

People received support and equipment to help them to stay independent. They were often supported to participate and engage in home life and sometimes within their local community. Improvements were planned to increase leisure and recreational opportunities for people.

People and their relatives were appropriately informed and comfortable to raise concerns or to make a complaint if they needed to. The views of people receiving care and their relatives were regularly sought by the provider and used to inform and improve people’s care experience.

The service was well managed and led and people, relatives and staff were confident in this. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities for people’s care and they were informed and supported to perform this.

The provider’s governance arrangements helped to inform and ensure continuous service improvement and accountability for people’s care.

There were 19 people living at the home on the day of our inspection. Due to their health conditions or complex needs not all people were able to share their views about the care that they received. We observed their experiences to support our inspection.

We spoke with four people who used the service, two relatives, the provider, the registered manager, three care staff and the housekeeper. We looked at four people's care records and four staff files.

We found that the provider had systems in place to gain the consent to care and treatment of people who used the service. Where people did not have full mental capacity to consent, care was provided in their best interests.

We found that staff had an understanding of the needs of people who used the service. We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a safe way, which met people's individual care needs. People we spoke with were positive about the care they received. One person told us, "I'm so happy here, we have fun and the staff are lovely."

We found that people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment and were protected from the risk of infection.

We found the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

All staff had received training including caring for people with dementia so that they had the knowledge to support the people safely in the way that they chose.

There were 20 people living in the home at the time of this review. We spoke with four people to gain their views of the service. People were positive about the availability of staff and the care they delivered. We were told staff were “Very good”, “Lovely and always around when needed”. One person told us they could “Talk to all staff and they were very, very good”.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in making decisions about their care. The care plans were signed by people, or their relatives, to show their involvement and agreement.

The provider was regularly seeking the views of residents, relatives and staff members on different aspects of care within the home through meetings and surveys.

The home had an established team and regular numbers of staff on duty to ensure people's needs were met.

The provider visited the home regularly. There were systems for monitoring the quality of the service. Some of these were formal systems which were recorded. Other systems were informal where it was not possible to establish the extent or frequency of the checks made.