Shotley Park is a residential care home for up to 43 people who have a range of needs including requiring support for dementia type conditions. The service is based over two floors in a Grade 2 listed building set in its own grounds. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people using the service.

This inspection took place on 26 and 27 January 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection, the service was rated overall good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The relatives we spoke with were overwhelming complimentary about the care provided by the staff. At our last inspection we rating the domain of caring as “Outstanding”. During this inspection we found outstanding care had been sustained and people were supported by staff who delivered care to the same high levels of consistency throughout the home. Relatives reported people were cared for to exceptionally high standards.

We found staff had developed extremely positive relationships with people. They were attentive to people’s needs and promoted their dignity and independence. They showed they were very patient with people and had a high level of understanding of their needs achieved through engaging both the person and their relatives in conversations about their care preferences. This ensured people’s care needs were met with efficiency and kindness.

We found the home had a warm and friendly atmosphere into which relatives told us they felt highly welcomed and involved in their family members’ care.

Copies of resident meetings and newsletters were available in the home so people were kept up to date about where they lived.

We looked at the administration of people’s medicines and found staff had been trained and assessed as competent to give people their medicines. We found the records and stocks of medicines to be accurate.

The service had in place risks assessments for people. Where a risk had been identified actions had been put in place to mitigate the risks. Accidents were reviewed by the registered manager to check to see if they could be prevented in the future.

Shotley Park is a residential care home for up to 43 people who have a range of needs including requiring support for dementia type conditions. The service is based over two floors in a Grade 2 listed building set in its own grounds. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people using the service.

This inspection took place on 26 and 27 January 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection, the service was rated overall good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Copies of resident meetings and newsletters were available in the home so people were kept up to date about where they lived.

We looked at the administration of people’s medicines and found staff had been trained and assessed as competent to give people their medicines. We found the records and stocks of medicines to be accurate.

The service had in place risks assessments for people. Where a risk had been identified actions had been put in place to mitigate the risks. Accidents were reviewed by the registered manager to check to see if they could be prevented in the future.

People were engaged in a range of activities which reflected their preferences. We saw during our inspection people were involved in doing chair exercises. Relatives described to us the activities which had taken place over Christmas 2016 and told us they had watched their family member enjoying themselves.

There was a fire risk assessment in place for the building and fire checks were carried out to ensure people were safe. Other checks to promote people’s safety in the home included water checks and window restrictor checks.

We checked staff rotas and spoke to staff to see if there were enough staff on duty during the day. Staff felt there were enough people on duty. We saw the registered manager had recently recruited an extra person to work nights due to the size and layout of the home.

The re

During the inspection we were able to observe the experiences of the people who used the service. We found that there were forty-one people who used the service. We also spoke with people who used the service. We spoke with two friends of people using the service and eight staff. One person told us “It’s lovely here, I have no complaints, and the staff are very helpful”. Another person told us that “Everything in my care is catered for, no matter what is required I know I will be supported. The care is very good”.

We were able to observe the experiences of people who use the service. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. One person told us “The staff look after you well and respect my dignity; my clothes are kept nice and clean.” Another told us that “I like to go out unaccompanied, do some of the things I used to do before moving here, the staff respect my independence”. We saw that people had their own rooms and people told us that staff knocked before entering. One person told us “My room is my private space” and we were told that staff respected people’s privacy. We saw that the people using the service related well with the staff. We saw that the staff communicated well and appropriately with people in a way that could be easily understood. We saw that staff were attentive and interacted well with people. People told us that they liked to make choices. People told us that there had been activities in the home to take part in if they wanted to. Some people preferred to go out. One person told us “I am going to my friendship club today, I usually go every week”. On the day of the inspection the hairdresser and an aromatherapist were there as people had asked for these services. We saw people had choice at breakfast and lunch and snacks were offered regularly during the day of our visit.

In order to determine how care and treatment was provided we spoke with staff, observed their practices and looked at the records of four people who used the service.

The manager had carried out a survey of people who used the service, the staff, their carers and relatives. In the survey everyone said that the care at the home was very good, the staff were supportive and the people used the service felt safe.

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We found that people who used the service had their care and welfare needs met.

We found that staff were supported in their roles and had received training in guidance in supporting people and found that people were safeguarded against abuse.

We found that staff had been well supported to deliver care and treatment safely. We were able to speak with eight of the eleven staff on duty at the home. All of the staff told us they were well supported by their manager and supervisors.

We found that the provider had auditing systems in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service provided.

During our visit we spoke with several people who used the service. They said that they liked the home and they were happy with the support they received.

One person said, “We are well looked after.”

People at the home said they felt involved in decisions about their care.

One person told us, “The care is very good.”

This inspection took place on 22 December 2014 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

The home provides care and accommodation for up to 43 people. On the day of our inspection there were 39 people using the service.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 home was last inspected by CQC on 21 October 2013 and was compliant.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.

We saw evidence that thorough investigations had been carried out in response to safeguarding incidents or allegations.

We saw a copy of the provider’s complaints policy and procedure and saw that complaints had been fully investigated.

We saw comprehensive medication audits were carried out regularly by the manager.

Training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

We saw staff supporting people in the dining rooms at lunch and tea time and choices of food and drinks were being offered.

All of the care records we looked at contained care plan agreement forms, which had been signed by the person who used the service or a family member.

The home was exceptionally clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. We discussed DoLS with the manager and looked at records. We found the provider was following the requirements in the DoLS.

People who used the service, and family members, were extremely complimentary about the standard of care. They told us, “This is the best place, all the staff are caring it’s a bit like a luxury hotel”. A relative said, “They’re so caring and my relative absolutely loves it here.”

We saw staff supporting and helping to maintain people’s independence. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect and people were encouraged to remain as independent where possible.

We saw that the home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service.

On the day of our inspection ten people went out for Christmas lunch.

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and we saw care plans were written in a person centred way.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.