This inspection took place on 28 March 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in September 2015 the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained good throughout all areas.

Rocklee provides support and care for up to 11 people with mental health needs. At the time of this inspection 11 people used the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 continued to receive safe care. People's individual care and support needs were met and systems were in place to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks to people's health and wellbeing were identified, managed and reviewed. People received their medicines in the way that had been prescribed for them. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs who had been employed in line with the provider’s safe recruitments procedures.

People continued to receive care and support that was effective. The principles of the MCA and DoLS were followed to ensure that people's rights were respected and upheld. Staff had been provided with training to fully meet people's needs and promote people's health and wellbeing. People were supported effectively with their nutritional needs and were involved in the planning and preparation of their meals. People were supported to access health services to maintain their health and wellbeing.

The care and support people received remained good. People were treated with kindness and respect and their right to privacy was promoted. People were involved in planning their care and their care preferences were met. Friendships and independence were encouraged in a way that was focused on people's aims and objectives. People were supported and encouraged to regain and retain their own level of independence.

People continued to receive a service that was focused and responsive to their individual needs. Staff had a thorough understanding of how people wanted to be supported, care plans were person-centred and people received individualised care and support that met their needs. The service had a complaints policy, and people knew how to complain.

The service continued to be well-led. There was a registered manager in post who was respected by staff and people who used the service. The registered manager understood their responsibilities of their registration and was committed to providing a high standard of care for people who used the service. Staff had clear values and were committed to providing a good standard of care. People and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback about the quality of the service. Monitoring of the service was in place to ensure that people received care in line with their assessed needs.

This inspection took place on 29 September 2015 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in June 2014 we found that the provider placed people at risk because of the unsafe management of medication and record keeping. There were two breaches of the Regulations which related to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, Regulation 13, Management of medication and Regulation 20, Records. These correspond with the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Regulation 12 and 17 respectively. At this inspection we found that the necessary improvements had been made.

Rocklee Residential Home provides care for up to 11 people with mental health needs. At the time of this inspection 11 people used the service.

There was 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 was run.

People felt safe and comfortable, staffing levels were sufficient to support people individually and in their preferred way. Systems were in place to protect people from the risks associated from medicines.

Staff were well trained and were supported to fulfil their role. The provider had a recruitment process in place. Staff were only employed after all essential pre-employment safety checks had been satisfactorily completed. Staff received regular supervision with the registered manager.

People’s health care needs were met. People received regular health support from external health care agencies. People attended appointments independently, staff were available to provide support when this was needed.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and staff promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. People were supported to develop links with the local community and to maintain contact with their family and friends.

The registered manager regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. Continual improvements to providing care were made which showed the registered manager was committed to delivering quality care.

We visited Rocklee on a planned unannounced inspection which meant that the service did not know we were coming.

We are changing how we inspect services in the future and also making changes in how we report our findings. Below is a summary of our finding based on our observations, speaking to people who used the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to ensure that the premises were safe and secure. The required health and safety checks and servicing of equipment were completed.

Sufficient staff were provided to deliver people's care needs; there was flexibility in the staffing levels to provide support to people in an individual way.

Medication was stored securely and systems were in place for people to receive their medications at the prescribed times and frequency. Some improvements were needed to ensure the administration of 'as required' medication and the accuracy of the checks were safe and robust.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service were encouraged and supported to engage with services, activities and events outside of the home.

The service had a complaints procedure for people to use where they were unsatisfied with the care provided. Some people felt confident to voice their concerns others were not quite so confident.

Is the service caring?

Most people who used the service told us that the staff were good and they were satisfied with the care and support provided. Some people told us that some staff were not quite so supportive and at times felt their privacy was compromised.

We observed that staff considered the safety and welfare of people when they were out of the home.

The home had regular client’s meetings which offered people the opportunity to discuss life at the home. Meetings were held in private with no staff intervention or attendance. People who used the service were regularly asked their views in relation to food and support that was provided.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service were supported to be as independent as possible.

People who used the service told us they were able to do whatever they wished to do each day. Sometimes they liked to participate in group activities, attend activities in the local community and at other times liked to spend time alone. We saw that staff respected these choices.

People's health, social and support needs were assessed and recorded. Regular reviews of the plans were completed and updated when any changes were identified.

Support for staff was provided through training and supervision.

Is the service well led?

Systems were in place to regularly monitor the quality and safety of the service.

Most people who used the service and were at the home during the inspection told us they were satisfied and happy to be living at Rocklee.

Improvements were needed to ensure that records were accurately completed, maintained and provided the necessary information to meet the needs of people who used the service.

When we completed our previous inspection we found that the provider was not meeting some of the regulations. We completed this inspection to check that the provider had taken action to improve the service. On this inspection we found that the provider had taken action to meet the regulations.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and knew how to keep people safe and how to respond appropriately when they had concerns.

The provider had improved the way it recruited staff. References were completed to make sure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Personal records were now kept securely. People were protected against the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care because records were accurate and up to date.

We visited Rocklee on 13 July 2012 as part of our scheduled inspection plan. The visit was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were coming.

There were 11 people living in Rocklee and during the visit we spoke with five people using the service and three staff. We looked at care records, staff rotas, staff recruitment records and other documents.

People who used the service were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. There was evidence that their privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People who used the service told us they were able to express their views. One person told us “We have meetings all the time to talk about what we want to do during the day. We talk about what meals to have and where to go on days out.”

There was evidence that people who use the service experience effective, safe and appropriate care. Each person had an individual care plan which documented agreed treatment and support to ensure that their needs were met and their rights were protected.

We spoke to people that use the service about raising concerns and complaints and they told us that they were encouraged to report any problems to the staff. One person told us “I feel safe here, I ask the staff to help me if I have a problem.”

We saw evidence that people that use the service were supported by staff with the right experience, skills and qualifications to ensure their needs could be met. The staff rotas show that the provider ensured that sufficient staff members were on duty to give the required support to people, with a range of diverse needs.

We saw evidence that the provider reviewed the quality of the service, the findings of which were used to take the home forward. Where suggestions were made the staff ensured the person’s issues were rectified and they were later satisfied. The provider told us that each person that used the service was sent an annual satisfaction questionnaire so that they could monitor what they were doing well or not so well.

This was an unannounced inspection. During the inspection we spoke with people that lived at the home, staff, the manager and a social care professional.

People were involved in planning their care and making choices about their lifestyle. People told us that they chose how and where they spend their time. People regularly accessed the community; going shopping and taking part in social and educational activities. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible taking part in domestic tasks around the home.

Care staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people and to act on incidents of concern. Some staff were not clear about the signs that may indicate someone was being abused.

Care staff were trained, supervised and supported to have the knowledge to provide people with safe and effective care.

The provider did not have a robust recruitment process. Records did not confirm that all the necessary pre-employment checks were completed.

Systems were in place to check the quality of care people received. People's views were sought and they had access to a complaints procedure.

Record keeping needed to be improved. This will make sure that accurate records are kept about people’s care and treatment and about the management of the home.