This inspection took place on 13 and 14 March 2018. The first day of the inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience and was unannounced. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The second day was carried out by two adult social care inspectors and was announced.

This was the first inspection since the service registered in March 2017. No concerns were identified during the registration process.

Stockmoor Lodge 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.

Stockmoor Lodge is registered to provide personal care and accommodation to up to 90 frail older people, or people living with Dementia. Accommodation is provided in a purpose built new building. The building is divided into six units for fifteen people. This meant people could still experience a homely approach to care and support enabling them to build relationships within their community.

At the time of the inspection there was 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.

People received care that was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes because regular staff knew their likes, dislikes and needs. However, there was a risk that staff who were new or did not work with the people on a regular basis would not have the information they required to be responsive to people’s needs. Staff records in care plans were recorded inconsistently. We saw care plans did not contain all the information required and that some of this information was later recorded in a risk assessment. This meant there was a potential for staff not to know which area to find the information. People were able to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives.

An activities programme was displayed within the home and people were informed of the activities available to them. However as the home occupancy had grown faster than expected the activities staff were not able to ensure all people who choose not to go to group activities would have access to other choices as they concentrated mainly on the groups. Activities staff explained that they did try to ensure one to one activities were carried out but also relied on care staff to support people on their units.

People told us they felt safe living in the home. One person said, “Yes I feel very safe”, a relative told us, “[The person] is safe here I don’t have to worry when I go home I know they will be alright.”

There was sufficient staff to safely meet the needs of people living in the home. However there were times when personal care was being carried out requiring two staff that other people living in the home needed to wait. The registered manager said staff could be used from another unit if this occurred. There was an on-going recruitment programme and the registered manager explained how they had made arrangements with the agency they used to ensure they only had regular agency staff who knew the home and the care needs of the people living there.

There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. All staff spoken with were confident action would be taken by the registered manager and provider to address any issues they may raise. They also knew they could go to external organisations to raise any concerns.

Medicines were managed safely,