This comprehensive inspection took place on 9 October 2018 and was unannounced.

RNIB Wavertree House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

RNIB Wavertree House provides accommodation for up to 36 older people. On the day of our inspection there were 33 people living at the home. Wavertree House is a residential care home that provides support for older people living with sight problems, some of whom are living with dementia. Accommodation was arranged over three floors with stairs and two lifts connecting each level. Each person had their own flat and there were communal lounges, a communal dining room and gardens. The home is situated in Hove, East Sussex.

The home had a registered manager 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.

In September 2017, the provider re-registered and changed its registered name to Royal National Institute of Blind People. The registered name of the service also changed to RNIB Wavertree House.

People and their relatives told us they had trust in the staff and felt safe and secure living at RNIB Wavertree House. Staff showed a good awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew who to inform if they saw or had an allegation of abuse reported to them. The registered manager was also aware of their responsibility to liaise with the local authority if safeguarding concerns were raised. One person told us, “It’s safe, warm, comfortable, friendly. We are well fed and looked after.”

The design, adaption and layout of the service had been completed to ensure that people who were living with different levels of sight loss could have their needs effectively met, to promote their independence and support them to move around safely.

Staff remained kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people. People's privacy was respected and staff supported people to be as independent as possible. People were involved in making decisions about their care.

Risks relating to people's care were reduced as the provider assessed and managed risks effectively. People’s visual difficulties were taken into account when managing risk and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible. There were effective infection prevention and control measures in place.

People's medicines were managed safely by staff. People were supported by staff who had been assessed as suitable to work with them. Staff had been trained effectively to have the right skills and knowledge to be able to meet people's assessed needs. Staff were supported through observations, supervisions and appraisals to help them understand their role. The provider had ensured that there were enough staff to care for people. One relative told us, “Everybody is so available and efficient.”

People continued to receive care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff received training on the Act to help them understand their responsibilities in relation to it. People’s capacity to make decisions had been carefully assessed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s needs continued to be assessed and person-centred care plans were developed, to identify what care and support was required. People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. People received compassionate support from staff at the end of their lives.

People were encouraged to