This inspection was carried out on 14 May 2018 and was unannounced. This inspection was brought forward due to some concerns we received from staff members working in the home as well as from members of the public. We shared the concerns with the provider who sent us a plan to tell us how they were going to address the issues. In this inspection we checked if the provider had implemented the changes they told us they were going to do. The concerns were related to lack of support for staff and not enough staff at times to meet people`s needs in a timely way.

Snowdrop House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Snowdrop House is registered for a maximum of 70 people. The home opened in September 2017 and had only 35 people living in the home at the time of this inspection. Services provided included residential and nursing care, short-term respite care and specialist care for people who may live with dementia, have a physical disability or require mental health support. This was the first inspection of the service since it registered with the CQC on 20 September 2017.

People were accommodated in a purpose-built environment over three floors which was clean and well maintained. Bedrooms were personalised and had en-suite facilities whilst still providing specialist bathroom facilities, several communal areas, dining rooms, coffee shop, hairdresser room, quiet lounges so people could choose where they wanted to spend their time.

There was a manager in post who registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

People told us they felt safe at the home. People had mixed views about staffing levels in the home. People who lived on the ground floor told us they felt there were enough staff, although people on the first floor told us they at times waited longer for their calls to be answered. Staff told us on occasions they worked short staff and some of the managers on the units didn’t help much on the floor.

Staff received training and were knowledgeable in how to safeguard people from any risks of abuse. They could describe what constitutes abuse and the reporting procedure they would follow to raise their concerns. Every staff member employed went through a comprehensive training programme to ensure they could effectively meet people`s needs. Not every staff member we spoke with felt a valued member of the team and they felt that managers did not always listen to their concerns.

People signed consent forms to agree to their photograph to be taken or for their records to be shared with relevant professionals, however people told us they did not know what was in their care plan. The provider had electronic care planning in place and all the care plans were in electronic format. However, we found that care plans needed further developing to ensure that they were personalised to the individual and not generalised.

People told us staff were kind and caring towards them and they respected their privacy and dignity. People told us they had confidence that if they reported concerns to staff these would be addressed.

Activities provided to people were varied and based on people`s preferences. People told us they enjoyed the opportunities to socialise and pursue their hobbies and interests.

People`s medicines were administered by trained staff who had a good understanding of safe medicine management practices. The provider was using an electronic medicine administration records system developed by a pha