About the service: Stainton Way is a care home that was providing personal care to 59 older people and people living with a dementia at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service: Risks to people were monitored and addressed. Medicines were managed safely. People were supported by sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff.

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 received effective support with eating and drinking. Staff were supported with regular training, supervision and appraisal.

Staff were exceptionally caring. Without exception people and relatives described how the service had improved people’s quality of life. People were valued as individuals and lived as full a life as possible.

People received personalised support. Staff were knowledgeable about how people wanted and needed to be supported. People had access to a wide range of activities that they enjoyed.

A range of quality assurance checks was carried out to monitor and improve standards. We received positive feedback on the management and leadership of the service.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published November 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection. It was scheduled based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

This inspection took place on 26 and 28 July 2016. The first day of the inspection was unannounced which meant the registered provider and staff did not know we would be visiting. The second day of inspection was announced.

Stainton Way is a residential home situated in Hemlington. It provides accommodation for people who need assistance with personal care or people who may be living with a dementia. Stainton Way can accommodate up to 67 people in rooms that have en-suite facilities. The home is a purpose built building with surrounding gardens and car parking. It is close to local bus routes. At the time of inspection there was 62 people using the service.

There was a manager in place, and they were in the process of applying to be the 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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe. Risk assessments were in place for people who needed these, however, some risk assessments had not been regularly reviewed and some required updating.

Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify any patterns and appropriate actions were taken to reduce the risks. Falls were also monitored to identify if any trends were occurring.

Staff we spoke with understood the procedure they needed to follow if they suspected abuse might be taking place and the registered provider had a policy in place to minimise the risk of abuse occurring. Safeguarding alerts had been raised or incidents accurately recorded if a referral to the local authority was not needed.

Emergency procedures were in place for staff to follow and personal emergency plans were in place for everyone. A robust procedure for recording fire drills had been implemented.

Medicines were managed appropriately. The registered provider had policies and procedures in place to ensure that medicines were handled safely. Medication administration records were completed fully to show when medicines had been administered and disposed of. People we spoke with confirmed they received their medicines when they needed them.

Certificates were in place to ensure the safety of the service and the equipment. Maintenance and fire checks had been carried out regularly.

A safe recruitment process was followed to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff being employed. All new staff completed a thorough induction process with the registered provider.

Staff performance was monitored and recorded through a regular system of supervisions and appraisal. Staff had received training to support them to carry out their roles safely; however some training had expired and was overdue and some certificates were not available in staff files. These certificates were produced following the inspection. A training plan to ensure all staff had up to date training had been developed.

People were supported to maintain their health. People spoke positively about the nutrition and hydration provided at the service. Staff understood the procedures they needed to follow if people became at risk of malnutrition or dehydration.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and knew what action they would take if they suspected a person lacked capacity. However, documentation was not always in place to support best interest decisions.

Each person was involved with a range of health professionals and this had been documented within each person care records. From speaking with staff we could see that they had a good relationship with health professionals involved in people’s care. People’s care records contained evidence of appropriate referrals to professionals such as f

At our last inspection we told the provider that improvements were required to achieve compliance with this outcome. The provider wrote to us and told us what actions they would take. We carried out this inspection to follow up the concerns we had raised and review the actions taken by the provider.

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 the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People who used the service felt respected and thought that care was delivered in a way which preserved their dignity and respected their human rights. They felt that they were given choices about their daily lives and routines and could ask staff for assistance whenever it was required. Staff were observed to be polite and happy to assist people whenever needed.

From our observations, people’s care and welfare needs were met and when treatment was needed by other health professionals this was sought. From the records we looked at, care was planned and delivered in a person centred way. People who lived at Stainton Way felt that their needs were met and raised no concerns with us about staff or the care they received.

We spoke with five people who lived at Stainton Way and one relative. One person told us; “This is one of the best places around”. Another person told us, “the staff are really lovely here”. Two people spoke with us about the food. One told us that the food was “ok and we get enough” another told us that before moving to Stainton Way, she hadn’t been eating much, but since moving, she said “I never leave anything now, I’ve put some weight on since I moved here, but I needed to”.

Two people spoke with us about how they were given choices and were able to make decisions about daily life and activities. One person told us that there was always something to do if they wanted to and that it was up to them if they joined in. The other person told us that they were given choices about all aspects of their life in Stainton Way and that staff talked to them about their care and support needs.

The relative we spoke with told us that they thought the staff were very professional and helpful and were always polite.

We spoke with five people who lived at the home. They told us that they felt the home was able to meet their needs, one person said, “Oh absolutely, they are fantastic.” Another person said, “I think I have struck lucky here.”

Our observations demonstrated that staff and people interacted with each other in a positive way.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. However where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider did not act in accordance with legal requirements.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises and equipment.