Springkell House Care Home is a residential care home for up to 35 older people living with dementia and conditions that affect their mobility. Care is provided across two floors in one adapted building. At the time of our visit there were 31 people at the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

Care was delivered safely with risks to people routinely assessed and planned for. Staff responded appropriately to incidents and understood their roles in safeguarding adults’ procedures. Medicines were managed and administered safely by trained staff. The home environment was clean with regular checks carried out to ensure its safety.

People were prepared food that they liked and their dietary needs were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The home environment was adapted to people’s needs and we observed people could move around the environment safely. People’s needs were assessed before they came to live at the home and staff supported people to access healthcare professionals. Staff had the right training and support for their roles.

Staff were kind and we observed interactions which demonstrated they had a caring nature. Staff knew people well and routinely involved people in their care. Care was provided in a way that encouraged people to maintain their independence. Staff were respectful of people’s privacy when they provided care in a dignified manner.

People had access to a range of activities and staff gathered information about people’s backgrounds and preferences to enable them to provide personalised care. Care plans were regularly reviewed and changes in needs were responded to. Staff planned end of life care in a sensitive and personalised manner. People and relatives knew how to raise a complaint and were confident their concerns would be addressed by staff or management.

People told us they liked the registered manager and we saw that they had regular opportunities to make suggestions about the home. Staff felt supported by management and systems were in place to enable good communication between staff. There were a variety of checks and audits at the home to monitor the quality of care delivery. People benefitted from the provider’s links with the local community.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

This inspection was carried out on the 15 October 2015 and was unannounced. Springkell House Care Home is a residential care home for up to 34 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over three floors. On the day of our visit 30 people lived at the service.

On the day of our visit there was a registered manager. 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.

People’s needs were met because there were enough staff at the service. People were supported in a timely way with their care needs. Accidents and incidents with people were recorded and trends analysed. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding adult’s procedures and what to do if they suspected any type of abuse. Staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work.

People’s medicines were administered and stored safely. Risks had been assessed and managed appropriately to keep people safe.

The risk assessments for people were detailed and informative and included measures that had been introduced to reduce the risk of harm.

In the event of an emergency, such as the building being flooded or a fire, there was a service contingency plan which detailed what staff needed to do to protect people and make them safe.

People’s human rights were protected because the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) were followed. There was evidence of mental capacity assessments specific to particular decisions that needed to be made.

People were supported by staff that were knowledgeable and supported in their role. Staff had received all the appropriate training for their role and their competencies were regularly assessed.

People at risk of dehydration or malnutrition had effective systems in place to support them. People were weighed regularly and were supported to eat healthy and nutritious food. People had access to a range of health care professionals, such as the GP, dietician and chiropodist.

People and relatives told us that staff were caring. One told us,“I’m genuinely very impressed with staff, they are quite special people here, their level of care is amazing.” Staff were caring and respectful of people.

Relatives and advocates supported people in the planning of people’s care. Care plans had detail around people’s backgrounds and personal history and included people’s views on what they wanted. Staff knew and understood what was important to the person and supported them to maintain their interests.

People were supported by staff that were given up to date information to enable them to respond to people effectively. Where it had been identified that a person’s needs had changed staff were providing the most up to date care. People were able to take part in activities which they enjoyed.

People and relatives said if they needed to make a complaint they would know how to. There was a complaints procedure in place for people to access if they needed to.

Staff said that they felt supported. One member of staff said that that they felt supported with the registered manager who they could go to them if needed.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. This included audits, surveys and meetings with people and staff.

As part of our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service and one person whose relative used the service. All people we spoke with were positive about the service. One person said; “You’re looked after really well. You couldn’t beat it”. Another person we spoke with said; “It’s fine and all the staff are fine”. A third person we spoke with said; “I’m happy here”. Another person we spoke with said; “It’s a really nice place and I’m very happy with it”.

We found people’s views had been sought and they and their relatives had been involved in the planning of their care. The service had ensured people’s consent had been obtained prior to any care being delivered and had ensured all staff had been trained in identifying and reporting possible signs of abuse. The service had appropriate measures in place to ensure people were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment and that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the services. These included observing how people were supported, spending time with people and talking with them.

We also gathered information by talking with people’s relatives who were visiting the service and some of the staff on duty. It was clear from speaking to both people who use services and their relatives that there is a high level of satisfaction with the service provided. People said they liked the staff and the service that was provided. One relative described the service as ‘absolutely wonderful’. We saw that the staff appeared happy in their work and were positive about the management.