People we spoke with all said they were safe and felt safe. The staff described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported to the managers. Training records confirmed staff had undertaken safeguarding training.

A range of risk assessments had been completed to improve the quality and safety of people’s care.

There was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff rotas showed that staff numbers were consistent each week to meet people’s needs. The call bell was answered promptly for staff to attend to people when they required assistance.

Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. Staff received medicines training.

Measures were in place to ensure the environment was safe and suitable for the people who were living there. We saw that repairs to the building were recorded and attended to in a timely way. The home was clean, hygienic and odour free. Accidents were recorded and reviewed each month to look at any ways to prevent reoccurrence.

Care plans were completed to demonstrate the support required and were regularly updated to reflect people’s current health and support needs.

Staff received a programme of mandatory training, which was updated as required and regular supervision. New staff received an induction.

People were supported to make their own decisions in relation to their care and support received whilst living at Saint Jude’s. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) process.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet; we found they received sufficient quantities of food and drinks throughout the day and had a choice of meals.

An activities coordinator was employed by the home. A variety of activities were arranged which provided stimulation and social interaction.

We saw that the staff, registered manager and the owner/provider showed kindness and compassion towards the people in the home. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s needs and circumstances.

People who lived in the home had the opportunity to voice their ideas and suggestions. The registered manager and owner had implemented some of the changes requested by people.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans were written for the individual and informed staff of people’s preferences and wishes.

There was a complaints procedure; people’s concerns and complaints received had been investigated and responded to in accordance with the procedure.

People were supported at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death. We saw people receiving end of life care were cared for well.

There is a registered manager in post. They understood their role and responsibilities and were well supported by the owner/provider, who played an active role in the running of the home. Quality assurance and governance processes were in place to help assess and improve the safety and quality of the service.

The inspection took place on 21 and 22 July 2015 and was unannounced.

Situated in a residential area of Blundellsands and located close to public transport links, leisure and shopping facilities, Saint Jude Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 17 people. The home has one double and sixteen single bedrooms situated over three floors. There is a passenger lift which provides access to the upper floors. The property is a large semi-detached property, which has a large front paved area for parking and a large garden at the rear. Communal living areas include a large dining room/lounge area and another lounge on the ground floor. There were 17 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

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 is run.

Relatives told us they felt the care home was a safe place for their family member. Safeguarding procedures were in place. Staff understood what adult abuse was and the action they should take to ensure actual or potential abuse was reported. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and said they would not hesitate to use it.

Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff and visitors we spoke with told us there was sufficient numbers of staff on duty at all times. We observed that people’s needs were met in a timely way by the staff.

A range of risk assessments had been completed for each person depending on their individual needs. We saw this in areas such as, falls, nutrition, mobility, continence management and pressure relief.

People’s care needs were recorded in a plan of care and support was given in accordance with individual need. Care documents showed regular reviews had been conducted, with any changes in circumstances being clearly recorded, to ensure staff had up to date information about the needs of everyone living at the home.

People received their medication at a time when they needed it. Systems were in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way.

People living at the home were supported by the staff to access a range of external health care professionals when they needed to.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored by the staff. Menus were available and people’s dietary requirements and preferences were taken into account. People told us they enjoyed the food and they got plenty to eat and drink.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing support or care. The home adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Applications to deprive people of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had been submitted to the local authority. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for people living at the home but these were general in nature and not decision-specific.

Staff told us they were well supported through the induction process and regular supervision. The staff we spoke with said they were up-to-date with the training they were required by the organisation to undertake for the job.

People could take part in social activities and were given the opportunity to go out with the staff if they so wished.

The building had recently been refurbished. The environment was clean, well-lit, airy and clutter free. Measures were in place to monitor the safety of the environment.

The culture within the service was and open and transparent. Staff told us management was both approachable and supportive. They felt listened to and involved in the development of the home.

Arrangements were in place to seek the opinions of people and their relatives, so they could provide feedback about the home. This included satisfaction surveys and residents’ meetings.

Audits or checks to monitor the quality of care provided were in place and these were used to identify developments for the service.

A procedure was established for managing complaints.