The inspection took place on 5 September 2017 and was unannounced. The last comprehensive inspection took place in March 2015, when the registered provider was meeting the regulations and the service was rated good.

Sandrock House is a care home situated in the Bessacarr area of Doncaster. It is registered to provide personal care for up to 37 people. The care provided is for people who have needs associated with those of older people and people living with dementia.

The service is near public transport and is in easy distance of the town centre and other amenities.

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.

The registered manager and registered provider were committed to maintaining a high quality service which was based on the individual needs and preferences of people who used the service. The registered provider and registered manager were passionate about the service and ensured staff were trained and focused in providing person centred care.

There was a strong emphasis on continual improvement and best practice which benefited people who used the service. The registered provider was committed to ensuring the service constantly improved and kept people who used the service at the centre of new initiatives.

The registered provider and registered manager were committed to use innovative and creative ideas to achieve high standards and to ensure people were empowered and given opportunities to voice their opinions. The service was managed in a person centred way making sure people who used the service were at the heart of everything. The registered provider placed a strong emphasis on improvement and worked towards and achieved recognised quality accreditation schemes such as the Gold Standards Framework for End of Life Care, a malnutrition project and a project with the emergency care practitioner’s to develop staff skills around basic observations. This report gives examples about how these projects have impacted on people’s lives.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff we spoke with were extremely knowledgeable about the procedure to follow for reporting concerns of a safeguarding nature. Staff were also aware of the whistle blowing procedure and confirmed that they would not hesitate to use this if required.

Risks associated with people’s care were identified and plans were in place to help minimise the risk from occurring. Staff were knowledgeable about risks and knew how to prevent them.

We found medicines were managed in a safe way and people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored appropriately and temperatures were taken of the medicine rooms and fridge.

Through our observations and talking with relatives of people who used the service and the staff, we found there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff told us there was enough of them to assist people without rushing and they had time to spend talking with people.

The registered provider had a safe recruitment process in place. Pre-employment checks were carried out prior to the person commencing their employment at the service.

Staff received training which gave them the skills and knowledge to carry out their role effectively. Training was refreshed on a regular basis to ensure their knowledge was updated and well maintained. The registered provider was also committed to their own training and was currently in the process of completing a level 5 management diploma.

People received a healthy, balanced diet that met their needs and ensured they received appropriate nutritious food and drink intake. The registered provider was involved in a proje

We spoke with five people who used the service. They spoke positively about the care and support they received. They confirmed the standard of care was good and staff took account of their wishes. One person told us "I have no complaints at all, I get good care and staff respect my wishes." Another person told us "Staff are very good, they sort things out quickly."

People’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The home was clean and well maintained. People we spoke with confirmed staff washed their hands and wore protective clothing when providing care.

We found people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff we spoke with were clear about their role and responsibilities.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately. People we spoke with confirmed they could raise any concerns with staff and these would be acted on.

During our inspection we spoke with five people who used the service. They spoke positively about the care and support they received. They told us they liked living in the home and confirmed they were well supported to make choices and decisions about their care. We received comments such as: "I'm being looked after very well, I like it here a lot" and "Care is very good, they (the staff) don't cut any corners."

People living in the home, confirmed they felt safe and said they liked the staff who looked after them. One person said: "It's very safe; staff are very kind and look after us very well." Another person told us: "Staff are very caring; they sort out problems or concerns quickly."

People told us that they liked living at Sandrock House because it was homely and people were friendly. One person told us they had chosen to live there as it was close to where their family lived so they could visit.

Relatives told us that they felt staff provided appropriate care and support. They said the proprietor was there most days and was very visible and approachable.

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 3 and 5 February 2015. We last inspected the service in May 2013 and found they were meeting the Regulations we looked at.

Sandrock House is a care home situated in the Bessacarr district of Doncaster. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 30 people. The service is near public transport and is in easy distance of the town centre and other amenities.

The home had a registered manager who had been registered since 2004. 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. The provider told us a new manager had been appointed in October 2014 who is completing a probationary period. The registered manager is retiring at the end of April 2015 and was currently working part time supporting the new manager. The provider told us the new manager would submit an application to register with the Care Quality commission before the end of April 2015.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home and said staff were very good to them. We saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable on safeguarding and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans to reduce the risks were in place to ensure people’s safety.

Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were only used when it was considered to be in the person’s best interest. This legislation is used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own. The provider and the registered manager demonstrated a good awareness of their role in protecting people’s rights and recording decisions made in their best interest. They were also aware of the new requirements in relation to this legislation.

We found people were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Recruitment and selection procedures in place ensured the appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

Suitable arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. Mealtimes were a relaxed and enjoyable experience for people who used the service. Most people we spoke with told us they enjoyed the food and there was always a choice.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. For example we saw referrals had been made to various health care professionals including speech and language therapists, district nurses and occupational therapists. This ensured people’s changing needs were reviewed and assessed.

We saw interactions between staff and people living in the home were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People spoke very highly of the staff and the care they received.

Activities were provided. We saw people were involved in activities on the day of our visit. People told us they had been consulted on what activities to provide and had suggested trips to the supermarket and shops. One person told us they used to visit the local supermarket and enjoyed this. The activities coordinator told us they were organising these trips, had identified places to visit and were booking transport. This showed people were listened to and their choices facilitated.

The manager told us they had received one complaint in the last twelve months. We saw this had been dealt with appropriately. People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about living at the home. Relatives we spoke with told us they had no concerns but would speak with the staff or registered manager if they needed to raise any issues.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the provider and the registered manager. The reports included any actions required and these were checked weekly to determine progress.