We inspected Seacroft Court on 5 January 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The service provides care and support for up to 50 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 44 people living at the home.

People living at the home were mainly older people. Some people required more assistance either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing memory loss. The home also provides end of life care.

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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of our inspection there was no one subject to such an authorisation.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had taken into consideration the complex needs of each person to ensure their needs could be met through a 24 hour period.

People’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered in a consistent way through the use of a care plan. People were involved in the planning of their care and had agreed to the care provided. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. The staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the home. The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. And meals could be taken in a dining room, sitting rooms or people’s own bedrooms. Staff encouraged people to eat their meals and gave assistance to those that required it.

The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All new staff completed training before working in the home. The staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the welfare of an individual.

People had been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had been completed to ensure services met people’s requirements.

This was an unannounced inspection on 02 December 2014. We did not give the provider prior knowledge about our visit.

This inspection was brought forward during to concerning information we received from other agencies direct to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Seacroft Court Nursing Home provides accommodation for persons who require personal and nursing care and can receive treatment and screening procedures to help maintain their health and well-being. It can accommodate 50 people. At the time of our inspection 34 people were using the service. People were of mixed ages and some people were suffering from dementia related illnesses.

At our last inspection on 26 June 2014 the service was not meeting two regulations. They were staffing and record keeping. The provider sent us an action plan telling us what they were going to do to ensure they complied with the regulations.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since April 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves and others. At the time of the inspection no people had had their freedom restricted.

We received information of concern prior to the inspection about the standard of hygiene and the possible lack of infection control methods within the home. We therefore decided to look at the infection control standards within the home at this inspection.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered in a consistent way through the use of a care plan. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe. However, some of the risks associated with people’s care needs were not always assessed and planned for and no action plans were in place.

People told us they were happy with the service they received and staff treated people with respect and were kind and compassionate toward them. People and the relatives we spoke with told us they found the staff were approachable and they could speak with them at any time if they were concerned about anything. They said they had limited contact with the manager.

Staff told us they had the knowledge and skills that they needed to support people. They did not receive all their training in a timely manner and on-going support to enable them to complete training was fragmented.

The provider had systems in place to regularly monitor, and when needed take action to continually improve the quality and safety of the service. Not all audits had been completed and some did not have action plans so it was difficult to see when tasks has been completed.

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. We considered our evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Regular checks were undertaken to ensure that the environment was safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are put in place to ensure a person who cannot make decisions for themselves are protected against unlawful restraint.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly. Therefore people were not put at unnecessary risk.

Accurate records were not always maintained which meant that people could be at risk from unsafe and inappropriate care and treatment arising.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them verbally but they had not seen the finished plan of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely.

People told us that they could express their views at meetings, on a one to one basis and by completing surveys.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

People commented, "Staff respect my wishes" and "All my needs are being met."

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service attended meetings throughout the year. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed. People told us that they felt their opinions were valued but said that feedback was sometimes slow when they raised issues.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People received their prescribed medicines.

Is the service responsive?

People told us that they could speak with staff each day and share their concerns. Relatives told us they could speak with staff about their family member's needs, when that person could not make decisions for themselves.

People told us that staff sometimes did not respond to answering call bells very quickly.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed.. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes that were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

Staffing levels dropped at times due to staff leaving, sickness and holidays. The provider was taking a long time to resolve the issues raised and ensuring sufficient staff were on duty at all times to meet peoples needs.