This inspection took place on 1 March 2017 and was unannounced.

Shannon Court is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 53 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 49 people living at the service.

There was not 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 manager had started their employment in December 2016 and was undergoing the registration process.

At our last inspection we found the provider was breaching five Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Risks to people were not well managed and the provider had not always gained people’s consent to their care. There were not always enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff had not been supported through individual supervision. Care plans were not always in place to meet people’s needs. The provider had not established effective systems to ensure good governance of the service.

At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to address these breaches. Risk assessments identified any risks involved in people’s care and the actions needed to reduce these. There were enough staff on each shift to meet people’s needs and staff received regular supervision. The provider had implemented a system of regular quality checks. Some care plans still required review but this had been identified by the manager, who had plans in place to address this.

Temperatures of medicine cabinets in peoples’ rooms were monitored weekly. However, there were two weeks in February where records were not kept. This meant that staff could not be assured that medicines had always been stored at manufacturers’ recommended temperatures and that they were safe to use. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from abuse. All staff had received safeguarding training and had access to the homes safeguarding policy. Safeguarding notifications had been submitted to the local authority safeguarding team and CQC in a timely manner. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.

People told us they felt safe. Accidents and incidents were documented with actions taken to prevent a recurrence. People’s medicines were managed and administered safely. People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs).

Staff worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Mental capacity assessments had been completed and best interest decisions made. Relatives as well as staff and professionals were involved in best interest decisions. Applications for DoLS authorisations had been made where required.

People were supported by staff who had supervisions (one to one meetings) with their line manager. Staff had received induction training and regular refresher training.

The staff met people's dietary needs and preferences. Information on food preferences and dietary requirements were in people’s care plans.

People’s health care needs were monitored and any changes in their health or well-being prompted a referral to their GP or other health care professionals.

People and their relatives told us that staff were caring. Relatives and friends were able to visit at any time.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and knew people well. People were encouraged to be independent. Care records contained information on how staff could communicate with people.

People were involved in the planning of their care. People had a range of activities they could be involved in and their spiritual needs were met.

People and their relatives knew how to complain. Complaints were responded to and outcomes recorded.

Regular reside

Shannon Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 53 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 49 people living at the service at the time of our inspection. Everyone living at Shannon Court had a previous connection with the Masonic community.

The inspection took place on 14 June 2016 and was unannounced.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was not available on the day of the inspection. We were supported by the deputy manager and members of the senior leadership team.

Sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs were not provided throughout the service. In some areas we found that staffing levels were adequate and people received their support in a responsive and timely manner. In other areas of the service sufficient staff were not available to ensure that people received the support they required. There was a high level of agency staff used which people told impacted on the care they received.

Staff did not always identify and act promptly to safeguarding concerns. When concerns were reported to the registered manager appropriate action was taken to minimise the impact on people. Risks to people’s safety were not always identified and actions were not always taken promptly to mitigate risks.

The provider had not acted in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005and Depravation of Liberties Safeguards. People’s capacity to make decisions had not been assessed and there was no evidence that meetings had been held to ensure that decisions taken about people who lacked capacity were made in their best interests.

Whilst each person had an individualised plan of care, the information recorded was not always reflective of people’s current needs. Care plans were not always completed and reviewed in a timely manner which meant staff did not always have access to the most up to date information relating to people’s care needs. Records relating to people’s care were difficult for staff to access due to technical difficulties with the electronic recording system.

There was a system in place to deal with people's comments and complaints however we found that the registered manager had not investigated, recorded and dealt with complaints a timely manner.

Regular audits were completed to monitor the quality of the service provided. However, these were not always effective in identifying areas which required improvement. The registered manager had responsibility for the managements of two services which both staff and people felt had an effect on the management oversight of Shannon Court.

Medicines were managed well and risk assessments were in place to mitigate the risk of mistakes being made. People were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to a range of healthcare professionals.

The provider’s recruitment procedures were robust, which helped to ensure that only suitable staff were employed. Staff attended an induction when they started work and had access to on-going training.

People told us they enjoyed the food provided. They said they had a choice of dishes at each meal and had access to drinks and snacks outside mealtimes. People’s dietary need were known by staff and support was offered to people in a dignified manner.

People and relatives told us that staff were caring. However ther were instances where people were not teeated with compassion. The permanent staff took time to communicate with people and ensure that support was offered in the way people preferred. Personal care was provided discreetly and people’s dignity and privacy was respected.

There was a wide range of activit