This inspection took place on 28 and 29 September 2016 and was unannounced. The home was last inspected in November 2014. At that inspection the service was judged to be ‘good’ overall but improvement was needed in how people were kept safe. The deployment of staff needed improvement to make sure staff did not leave people unsupervised in the lounge and medication systems needed to be improved to make sure people received their medication as prescribed. This inspection found that these issues had been improved.

Tandy Court is registered to provide care and support for up to 40 older people who have needs relating to their age or dementia. Nursing care is not provided. On the day of our inspection there were 37 people at the home.

The home had a registered manager but they had moved into the role of district manager. A new manager was in post who was not yet registered with us. Both were available throughout our inspection. 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.

We observed people looking relaxed and at ease within the home, and with the staff who were supporting them. People and their relatives told us they felt safe at the home. Staff were aware of the provider’s processes for reporting any concerns. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Most risks of harm to people receiving the service had been assessed and recorded but improvement was needed to ensure people could be confident all risks were well managed.

There were enough staff to support people safely. Staff told us they had recently had to work extra shifts to cover staff vacancies. Recruitment had taken place and additional staff had been employed. Satisfactory recruitment checks were in place to help ensure staff that were employed were safe to work with people. Staff had been trained to support people effectively. This included learning about the specific needs the person lived with. Staff told us that they received regular supervision and felt supported.

People’s medicines were safely managed, stored and administered by staff who had received training and had been assessed as competent to administer medicines.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions.

People we spoke with told us they were happy at the home. People told us that they were supported by staff who were kind, caring, attentive and compassionate. People were able to make decisions about how they wanted their care provided. Staff maintained people's privacy and dignity whilst encouraging them to remain as independent as possible.

People told us they were offered meals which they enjoyed. People were supported to eat enough food and drink by staff who understood their nutritional needs. People's health was supported by access to a variety of health professionals.

People told us that they played an active part in contributing to the planning and reviewing of their care to ensure it was delivered how they wished . A variety of activities were provided to meet the interests of individual people. We saw people were engaged and were consulted about the activities programme.

People who lived at the home, their relatives and staff were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service and there were effective systems in place if people wished to make a complaint. The new manager was in the process of applying to us to be registered and was able to tell us about their future plans for the development of the home. Support was available to the manager to develop and drive improvement and a s

There were 40 people living at the home on the day of our visit, one person was in hospital. Some people were not able to share their views of the service so we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experience of people using the service. We spent time observing what was happening in the home.

We spoke with eight people living in the home, three relatives and five members of staff including the manager. People we spoke with were complimentary about the home. People told us that they were happy with the care they received. One person told us, “I definitely feel safe here, it is much better than being in a flat on my own.”

A new care planning system had been implemented but the information in place did not properly reflect people's needs and how they were to be met.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had the appropriate arrangements for managing medicines safely.

An effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received was in place.

We talked with two people who lived at the home, and with the relative of another person. All of the people we spoke with said they were satisfied with the care provided. People told us they did not have any complaints but felt able to raise any complaints if they needed to.

At our last inspection in June 2012 we found that where improvements had been identified as needed, these had not been completed in a timely manner. At this visit, we found that improvements had taken place and the majority of improvements identified by the home had been completed in line with their own time scales.

There were 38 people living at the home on the day of our visit, one person was in hospital. The provider did not know we were coming. We visited the service as part of our planned review and to follow up improvements needed from our visit in January 2012.

Some people using the service were not able to or willing to share their views of the service. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experience of people using the service. We spent time observing what was happening in the home. We spoke with seven people living in the home, three visitors and four care staff.

People's privacy and dignity was respected. We saw staff treat people with respect, talking with them and helping them at a pace the person was comfortable with.

Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences and what they needed to do to meet these needs

Every one we spoke with was complimentary about the home. People told us that they were happy with the care they received. One person told us ‘’ I get looked after well, the staff could not be better.’’

Visitors to the home told us they were very happy with the care and support their relative or friend received. One visitor told us ‘’ I have nothing detrimental to say about the home.’’

During our visit, we met with people who lived at Tandy Court, as well as a relative who was visiting. People we spoke with reported being happy living there. One person told us ‘’I prefer it to my other home, it is more independent here, I make more choices for myself.’’, another person told us ‘’This is where I want to stay, I like it here.’’

Staff were able to explain the care that individual people needed and we saw that staff were kind and caring in their approach to people.

We spoke with people who live at the home about staffing. People were happy and told us that staff come and help them when they need it. People told us ‘’ Carers check on me at night and make sure I am okay.’’

We found that there were systems in place to capture the views of people living at the home. This included group meetings with people and their relatives, care reviews and service satisfaction surveys.

This inspection was undertaken on 13 and 18 November 2014 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in February 2014 we found that there were three breaches in the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. At that time people’s care was not always planned and delivered safely, there were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs and records were not well maintained We asked the provider to make the improvements required and they wrote to us and told us that these improvements would be completed by 30 April 2014. During this inspection we found that the provider had made the required improvements.

The home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 40 older adults, some of who may have physical disabilities or are living with dementia. The accommodation is provided in single bedrooms, all of which are ensuite. There were 36 people at the home during 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

All the people we spoke with told us they were happy at the home. They told us the staff were kind and helped them when they needed support. We saw staff supported people with kindness and compassion.

There were sufficient staff to support people safely but the deployment of staff needed improvement to make sure staff did not leave people unsupervised in the lounge. Some risks to people’s safety had been identified by the registered manager and actions were in progress to reduce these risks. People said they felt safe. Staff had training and knew how to recognise and respond to concerns about abuse and poor practice.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including when balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment. This includes decisions about depriving people of their liberty so that they get the care and treatment they need where there is no less restrictive way of achieving this. DoLS require providers to submit applications to the appropriate local authority, for authority to do so. We found that the provider had complied with the requirements of MCA and DoLS.

Staff had access to a variety of training that supported them in meeting the needs of people living in the home effectively and received regular supervision to support their personal development.

People were appropriately supported and had sufficient food and drink to maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to access healthcare services to maintain and promote their health and well-being.

People knew how to make a complaint and told us they felt able to express their views at any time and that they were listed to and acted on.

Support was available to the registered manager of the home to develop and drive improvement and a system of internal auditing of the quality of the service being provided was in place.