The inspection was unannounced, which meant the provider did not know we were coming. It took place on 8 and 13 September 2016. The home was previously inspected in December 2013, and at the time was meeting all regulations assessed during the inspection

The Grove is a 28-bed home providing personal care for older people. The home is set out over two floors and has a combination of single rooms and double rooms, 26 of which have en-suite facilities.

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.

Safeguarding alerts had been made when needed. Staff understood the procedure they needed to follow if they suspected abuse might be taking place.

Risk assessments were in place for people who needed them. They were specific to people's needs..

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

There were sufficient staff on duty. People told us there was enough staff on duty day and night to meet their needs.

Medicines were managed appropriately. The service had policies and procedures in place to ensure that medicines were handled safely. Medication administration records were completed to show when medicines had been administered.

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

Robust safe recruitment processes were in place.

Staff performance was monitored and recorded through a system of supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to maintain their health. People spoke positively about the nutrition and hydration provided at the service. Staff understood the procedure they needed to follow if people became at risk of malnutrition or dehydration. However some of the care plans had not been updated to reflect the persons changing needs.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of the requirement of the Mental Capacity Act 2005and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard and knew what action they would take if they suspected a person lacked capacity.

Each person was involved with a range of health professionals and we saw records to confirm this. From speaking with staff we could see that they had a good relationship with the health professionals involved in people's care.

People spoke highly of the service and the staff. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

People, and where appropriate their relatives, were actively involved in care planning and decision making. This was evident in signed care plans. Information on advocacy was displayed within the home and was available should people need it.

Care plans detailed people's needs, wishes and preferences and where person-centred. People's life history was documented. However, some care plans had not been reviewed and updated when changes had occurred.

Activities were planned in advanced and displayed on a large notice board within the home. We saw that people participated in activities and people told us there were a range of activities on offer.

The registered provider had a clear process for handling complaints.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt supported by the registered manager. Staff told us they were confident any concerns would be dealt with appropriately. We could see from our observations and from speaking to people and staff that the registered manager had a visible presence at the service.

Quality assurance processes were in place. Records confirmed these were completed on a regular basis. However, the audits failed to identify areas where action need

During our inspection visit we spoke with six people, and five relatives of people, who lived at the home. We spoke with the registered manager, three care workers, two domestic staff and the cook.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People’s comments about the home included, “I love it here”, “Some brilliant girls in here, they do their best for me”, “Everybody’s very nice, I like it here”, and “It’s lovely, everyone’s so friendly, we’ve got everything we need.”

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. People told us, “They [staff] bend over backwards, I get allsorts salmon, scampi, I get to eat what’s good for me for my health needs. I never feel hungry” and “I have to have breakfast every morning at 7.00am and I get it.”

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had regular supervisions and access to further training relevant to their roles.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

People told us that they were happy living at the home and that they were satisfied with the care they received. They told us “I think it’s nice here and I am well looked after “and “I can't grumble, the staff are very nice it’s a good place.” People told us that their health and personal care needs were met and that they felt safe at the home.

People that we were unable to fully communicate with looked content and we observed positive interactions with staff and people living at the home.

Records checked showed that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Relatives we talked with told us, where people lacked capacity, they were also involved in these decisions.

We spoke with three relatives who were visiting the home and they confirmed that they were satisfied with the care provided.

We found that people's care and welfare needs were assessed and each person had a written plan of care that set out their identified needs and the actions required of staff to meet these.

We found that there were generally sufficient numbers of trained staff provided to meet people's needs.

We found that a complaints policy and procedure was in place. People had been provided with information on how to make a complaint. All of the people and their relatives spoken with said they had no complaints or concerns about the home.

People who used the service told us they were happy with the care provided and were involved in decisions about their care and welfare needs. They also told us that their privacy and dignity were respected.

We spoke with three relatives who told us they had been involved in the development of their relative’s care plan and were able make changes to their relative’s care if they wished. They also told us their relative’s dignity was respected and confidentiality was always maintained.

People who used the service told us they were happy living in the home and they were well looked after. Two people told us “It is all right living here” and one person told us, “I am happy here”. Another person told us, “I have nothing to grumble at and I have friends here; it is like a family environment”.

We spoke with three relatives who told us they were happy with the care and their family member was well looked after. The three relatives we spoke with told us that the staff understood the care needs of their family member and they were contacted by the home straight away if their family member required any treatment.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe at the home and they would tell staff or the manager if they were worried about anything.