The inspection took place on 31 July 2017. The inspection was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we would be inspecting.

St Aiden’s Cottage is a care home that provides accommodation for people who require personal or nursing care. The home is based in Bearpark, County Durham and provides care for older people with learning disabilities, people living with acquired brain injury or dementia. The home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 41 people. On the day of our inspection there were 32 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 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.

At our last visit to the service in November 2016, we found the service in breach of a number of regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2014 and we rated the service as “Requires Improvement.” On this visit we found the provider had fully met the regulations and the service is now rated as “Good.”

Staffing levels had much improved and staff told us this now felt safe. We observed staff taking people out in the community and spending time chatting with people. Staff training in relation to supporting people who displayed behaviour that may challenge had been implemented and had a very positive impact. Staff told us they now understood better the reasons why people may become distressed and that systems were in place to support people and staff more effectively in these circumstances.

Accidents and incidents had been appropriately recorded and monitored and risk assessments were in place for people who used the service and staff.

We found safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show the service verified the conduct of prospective staff members.

On our last visit some staff and people had told us they did not always feel safe, but now everyone we spoke with said they felt safe. Staff and people were aware of procedures to follow if they observed or were aware of any concerns.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored in a safe manner. People were also encouraged where possible to manage their medicines themselves with support from staff. The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. People were enabled to access the garden area. Improvements had been made since our last inspection in relation to putting in ensuite bathrooms, décor and furnishings. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out on the building.

Staff were suitably trained and training was maintained so staff skills remained up to date. Staff now received regular supervisions and appraisals and told us they felt supported and were working as a team.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). 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.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of visits to and from external healthcare specialists to ensure people’s physical health was supported.

Staff supported people who used the service with their social and emotional needs. We observed that all staff were very caring in their interactions with people at the service. People looked very comfortable with staff members. There was a warm and positive atmosphere in the service a

The inspection took place on 17 January 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we were visiting.

St Aiden’s Cottage is a care home that provides accommodation and nursing care for people who require nursing care. The home is based in Bearpark, County Durham and provides care for older people with learning disabilities and people living with acquired brain injury or dementia. The home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 41 people. On the day of our inspection there were 30 people using the service.

The home does not currently have a registered manager. 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.

Although there was no registered manager in post at the home we met the manager who was intending to register with CQC. They had been at the service for seven weeks.

At the previous inspection on 15, 16 November and 1 December 2016 we found that supervisions and appraisals had not been completed or adequately planned. During this inspection we found the new manager had ensured a significant majority of staff had received supervision and, where required, appraisal meetings. They had also planned all supervision and appraisal meetings for the forthcoming year.

All staff we spoke with commented on the noticeable impact of feeling more supported in the workplace and confirmed supervision and appraisal meetings were meaningful two-way discussions about any concerns they might have, and what further training may be beneficial.

We saw where further training had been identified at these meetings, it had been booked by the manager.

At the previous inspection we found staff training had not been renewed in line with the provider’s policy, particularly with regard to MAPA training (Management of Actual or Potential Aggression). At this inspection we found all but four staff were yet to receive MAPA refresher training, and these staff had the training booked. The new manager had worked with the administration assistant to ensure the training matrix was up to date.

To address the concerns we raised regarding the timeliness of care planning the new manager had ensured senior care staff were accountable for the regular review of five people’s care files. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of this new approach.

The new manager had ensured staff awareness and understanding of the importance of maintaining people’s privacy and dignity had been improved, through individual supervision, staff and senior meetings.

The inspection took place on 15, 16 November and 1 December 2016. The inspection was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we would be inspecting.

St Aiden’s Cottage is a care home that provides accommodation for people who require personal or nursing care. The home is based in Bear Park, County Durham and provides care for older people with learning disabilities, people living with acquired brain injury or dementia. The home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 41 people. On the day of our inspection there were 30 people using the service.

The home did not have a registered manager in place managing the service. 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.

At the time of our inspection visit there was a care manager acting as a deputy manager and a covering manager from another service but no registered manager in place at the service.

We spoke with a range of different team members; the care manager, the covering manager, care staff, kitchen staff, domestics and maintenance staff who gave us mixed reviews about the management of the service.

From looking at people’s care plans we saw they held some personal history and described individuals’ care, treatment, wellbeing and support needs. They detailed the care required and were written in plain English but not always in a ‘person-centred way’. Person centred care is an approach that aims to see the person as an individual, rather than focusing on their illness or disability.

Individual care plans contained personalised risk assessments. These risk assessments identified risks and were in place to enable people to take risks safely.

On the day of our inspection people who used the service were not supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs. We could see in the staffing rotas that there had been recent staffing issues and people who used the service were not supported by enough people to enable them to take part in leisure activities.

When we looked at the staff training records they showed us that staff were not always supported to maintain and develop their skills through training and development opportunities. We found that some training had expired and staff needed to attend refresher training imminently.

When we looked at supervision and appraisal records we saw that these had not been carried out with all staff.

Staff recruitment records that we looked at showed us that staff were recruited safely.

We observed how the service stored and administered medicines. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with the management team about how staff were trained to administer medication and we found that medicines were administered safely.

During the inspection we witnessed the staff rapport with the people who used the service and saw some positive, caring and warm interactions took place.

We observed some practices that at times didn’t respect people’s dignity or maintain their privacy.

Activities for people to take part in were not provided. We saw some evidence that plans were made for people to be supported to go out but this was not regular or consistent.

We saw people were encouraged to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. We saw people enjoying their meals. The daily menu was not developed with the people who used the service to incorporate their likes and preferences but was adapted to suit the people who used the service.

We saw a complaints and compliments procedure was in place and this provided information on the action to take if someone wished to make a complaint and what they should expect to happen next. We saw evidence that the complaints procedure was adhered to. People who used the service wer

During our inspection we asked ourselves 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 using the service, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us they enjoyed living at the service and they felt well cared for. People made comments such as "this is the best place I have ever lived and I have been in a few", "I am happy here the staff are good" and "I am involved in my care and asked about how I want to move on".

We asked people using the service if they knew how to report abuse and how to access other professionals if necessary. People told us what they would do if they were being abused or suspected abuse. One person said "I could tell the manager or my social worker". We spoke with staff who also were able to tell us how they would report incidents of abuse. Staff also told us they had received training in safeguarding people from abuse. Training records looked at confirmed this.

Was the service caring?

People were cared for by staff that spoke to them appropriately. We observed a number of interactions and found staff respected people’s privacy when they chose to spend time in their room. We also found staff engaged people in their care by having individual one to one conversations to ensure they were happy with their care, and also had group meetings to ensure people were involved in decisions about how the service operated.

Was people’s care effective?

We looked at the care records of three people and found improvements were required. Staff did have knowledge of people’s health conditions but did not understand how those conditions impacted on their health and well-being.

The service did not have a system in place for analysing incidents and ensuring people's care was delivered in line with published research and guidance. We found examples where people had known risks and there was an absence of strategies and interventions to ensure people received care which was safe and effective.

Was the service responsive to people’s needs?

We did find that the service had made arrangements to ensure people received appropriate medical care where required. For example we saw evidence where people had involvement from GP's and nurses when they had specific health conditions. However we did also find where people’s mental health had deteriorated or people required input from other professionals this was not always recognised by the service, which meant people did not always receive the care they required.

Was the service well led?

We looked at the leadership in the service and did find staff were supported with professional development but the services quality assurance system did not identify where staff required specific training to ensure people using the service received care which was safe and effective. Where concerns had been identified through the providers quality assurance system these had not been addressed in a timely manner. For example we found issues regarding the administration of medication which had been highlighted in February 2014 during the providers visit to the service which still remained unrectified.

We spoke with five people who used the service and one relative.

We found people were asked for their consent to care and treatment. For example, when administering medication a member of staff asked “Can I give you your medication please?”

People told us they were happy with the care provided. Comments included “The staff are fine, it’s a lovely place”, “(Relative’s name) is well looked after and the care is personalised”, “Everything is good, it’s alright here” and “The staff are very good.”

We found staff were aware of their duties in relation to safeguarding. People told us they felt safe living at the home.

We saw staff attended training courses relative to their role. We spoke with three members of staff who all told us they received regular feedback and support.

We found the provider requested feedback from people who used its services, relatives and staff, and took action to address any concerns.

We spent time observing how staff supported people living at the home. We found staff were very respectful in their approach, treating people with dignity and courtesy.

We saw all staff knocked on doors before entering, ensuring people’s privacy was respected. People we spoke with said they were happy with the staff, comments included; “This is the best home” and “Staff are alright.”

We saw people being involved in day to day decisions about their care; we also saw that care needs assessments were written in discussion with people using the service or their families.

We spoke with several people who lived at St Aiden’s Cottage, they were all positive about the care they received. Comments included “It’s good, I am happy living here” and “The staff understand my needs, I am happy here.”

During our inspection we looked around the home. We saw the building was generally kept clean and tidy.

People said that they knew they could speak to a member of staff if they had a complaint. One person said "I had one complaint, I told the staff and they sorted it out", another said “I would just tell the staff, haven’t had to complain yet though.”

We spoke with 8 of the 9 people who used the service. They were very positive about the care and support they received from St Aiden’s Cottage.

They told us:

“”My movement has got a lot better since I lived here”,

“It’s quiet”,

“Staff are great, they are hard workers and keep the whole place clean”,

“We go shopping”,

“I’ve been going to college”,

“I’ve been getting help to lose weight, I’ve lost 2 stone. The staff have been helping me not to eat chocolate and I’ve done more exercise too”,

“The people are really nice, I get on well with Pat (a person who also uses the service),we are good friends”,

“I keep some of my money for going out for dinner or coffee but the rest goes in the safe so I know it’s safe”,

“Anita (the manager) rounds us up for resident meetings once a month or so, at the last one we were talking about Halloween”,

“I’ve got no grumbles”,

“We can talk to Judy (a member of staff), if we have any problems”,

“At the weekend we made Christmas cards for a competition”,

“About a fortnight ago I read through my care plan and my keyworker went through it with me so I understand it. There were things that I don’t need now as I can do those things for myself so she said she would change them. I’m happy with it”, and

“I never feel I shouldn’t have said that”.

This inspection took place on 16 and 18 June 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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.

On 16 April 2014 we completed an inspection and informed the provider they were in breach of a number of regulations including the care and welfare of people using the service and assessing and monitoring the quality of the service.

Whilst completing the visit we reviewed the action the provider had taken to address the above breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. We found that the provider had ensured improvements were made in these areas and these had led the home to meeting the above regulations.

St Aiden's Cottage Care Home is situated in the village of Bearpark, close to Durham city centre. It comprises of three wings, St Aiden’s, St Bede’s and the Old Vicarage. People who used the service have access to all wings. It provides residential and nursing care for up to 41 people with acquired brain injuries, learning disabilities, physical disabilities or mental health conditions. On the days of our inspection there were 30 people using the service, none of which had nursing needs.

People who used the service were complimentary about the standard of care at St Aiden’s Cottage Care Home and were asked about the quality of the service provided. We saw staff supporting and helping to maintain people’s independence. People were encouraged to care for themselves where possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

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

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home but could be more suitably designed for people with dementia.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is 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 registered manager and looked at records. The registered manager was fully aware of the recent changes in legislation and we found the provider was following the requirements of DoLS.

We found evidence of mental capacity assessments or best interest decision making in the care records. Staff were following the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make particular decisions and the provider had made applications under the Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for people being restricted of their liberty.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people at meal times when required.

People who used the service had access to a range of activities in the home and within the local community.

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Care plans and risk assessments were in place when required and daily records were up to date. Care plans were written in a person centred way and were reviewed regularly.

We saw staff used a range of assessment tools and kept clear records about how care was to be delivered and people who used the service had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support.