The inspection took place on 23, 24 and 25 July 2018, and was unannounced. Stadium Court Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Stadium Court Care Home is registered to provide personal care and accommodate up to 110 people in five adapted buildings. However, only three buildings were currently occupied. These three buildings, or ‘units’ were called Stafford, Spode and Wade. There were 77 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. This registered manager was only planning on being there temporarily until a permanent manager was recruited. There were also unit managers for each unit who reported to the registered manager.

This is the homes first ratings inspection since it was registered.

At this inspection we identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We have made a recommendation that arrangements for staff with a positive Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check are reviewed to reflect current working arrangements.

We have also made a recommendation that people’s care plans contain more personalised information.

Medicines were not always being managed or stored safely. We could not always be sure that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.

Quality assurance systems in place did not always ensure that people received a safe and effective service. However, some improvements required had been identified and an action plan was in place that was in progress. People felt able to approach the registered manager or unit managers. However, there was some confusion from people, relatives and staff about the management structure and ongoing changes. People and relatives were asked for their opinion about care but some felt that communication could be improved.

There was mixed feedback about staffing levels and work was ongoing to improve staff deployment. People told us they felt safe but risks were not always assessed, planned for and managed appropriately. People were protected from potential abuse by staff who understood their safeguarding responsibilities. People were also protected from the risk of infection as the home was clean and tidy and systems were in place for infection control. The building was appropriately maintained and plans were in place in case of emergency.

People were not always supported to maintain their dignity. However, people felt staff were kind and caring. People were encouraged to be independent and there were no restrictions on people visiting the home.

We found that some staff had not always received refresher training relevant to their role. However, the provider was in the process of addressing this, to ensure staff had the appropriate skills to meet people’s needs. People’s human rights were protected because staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which was adopted in their care practices. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were supported to have food and drinks of their choice. People had access to other health professionals to ensure their physical and mental health. The building was suitably adapted to cater for the people living