The Poppies 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. The Poppies provides accommodation and care for up to 12 people, across two floors. There were nine people living at the home at the time of our visit.

At the last inspection in March 2016 the services was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of 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.

People continued to be supported to stay as safe as possible. Staff took people’s safety needs into account and responded to their individual safety needs, whilst promoting their independence. There were sufficient staff to care for people, spend time chatting with them and meet their needs.

Systems were in place to promote the safe administration of people’s medicines, and to reduce the likelihood of errors occurring. People benefited from living in a home where checks were made on the safety of the home and the support provided. Learning was taken from any untoward incidents.

People’s care preferences and needs were assessed before they came to live at the home. The views of other health and social care professionals were considered when staff assessed if they would be able to meet people’s needs.

Staff had taken opportunities offered to develop their skills and knowledge further, and people were complimentary about the way they were cared for. We saw staff used their skills and knowledge of people’ individual preferences when caring for them.

People told us they decided what they wanted to eat and drink and enjoyed their meal time experiences. Where people needed some support and encouragement to have enough to eat and drink staff assisted them. People benefited from living in a home where staff had developed positive relationships with health care professionals. This helped people to get the specialist help they needed promptly.

People are 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.

Strong bonds of friendship had grown between people and the staff who cared for them, and people told us they were treated very kindly by staff. This was evidenced in the respectful way staff supported people and took their rights to dignity and privacy into account. Staff supported people in ways which maximised their independence.

People, their relatives and other health and social care professional’s views were the focus when staff planned people’s care with them. This helped to ensure people were offered care which reflected their unique needs and levels of independence. Staff adapted how they supported people, so people were in the best position to make their own decisions about what care they wanted.

There were systems in place to support people to raise any concerns they had or to make a complaint. Everyone we spoke with told us they had not wanted to make any complaints because the care provided was good.

The registered manager spent time supporting and chatting with people, so they could be assured people were receiving good quality care. People wer

This inspection took place on 28 January 2016 and was unannounced.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 12 people. There were 8 people living at the home on the day 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 were safe and well cared for. Staff were able to demonstrate they had sufficient knowledge and skills to carry out their roles effectively and to ensure people who used the service were safely supported.

People were cared for by staff who had a good understanding of of protecting people from the risk of abuse and harm. Staff knew their responsibility to report any concerns and were confident that action would be taken.

People needs were met promptly. Both people living at the home and staff said that there were sufficient staff numbers to meet people’s needs and we saw staff responding to people in a timely way.

People’s rights and freedoms were respected by staff. Staff understood people’s individual care needs and had received training so they would be able to care for people in the best way for them. There were good links with health and social care professionals and staff sought and acted upon advice received, so people’s needs were met.

People were supported to have drinks and snacks throughout the day. People enjoyed the food they received and were positive about the choice of food given.

People were positive in their feedback about the service and confirmed they attended residents meetings and completed questionnaires to give feedback on the care provided. People told us their privacy and dignity was maintained by staff and we made observations that supported this.

The registered manager was accessible and approachable and completed regular checks to monitor the quality of care and take action where identified.

This was the first inspection carried out at The Poppies since the service became registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in February 2013.

When we carried out this inspection six people were using the service. We spoke with the registered manager, the care manager, a member of the care staff, the activities coordinator and the cook. We also spoke with two directors of the company. We spoke with five people who were using the service during our inspection. Comments made by people who used the service included: “I like it a lot here” and “I can’t grumble about the care provided here”.

We observed how staff interacted with people. We saw that staff spoke with people in a respectful manner. From our observations we saw that people were provided with care that met their individual needs. Staff generally knew about the needs of the people they were caring for. We looked at care records and found that these were not always in place or did not always contain sufficient guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home and knew who to speak to if they had any concerns.

We saw that although staff were supported on a day to day basis supervision was not taking place. Some parts of staff training had not been refreshed recently.

We saw that improvements needed to be made to ensure that regular monitoring of the quality of the service was taking place. This would reduce the risk of inappropriate care taking place.

This unannounced inspection was carried out over two days on 14 and 19 November 2014. At our previous inspection on 30 July 2013 we identified a breach to a regulation. This was relating to the lack of effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided to people. Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. We found that improvements had been made as some systems to monitor the quality of the service provided were in place. The manager was aware that further improvement was necessary to ensure monitoring of the care provided was effective.

The Poppies provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people. There were eight people living at the home when we visited.

The provider is required to have a registered manager in post. No registered manager was in place. The registered manager left the home shortly after the previous inspection. The provider had taken action to recruit a manager. We were informed that one person is currently awaiting checks to be returned in order for them to apply to become the registered manager with the Care Quality Commission.

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.

People who lived at the home told us they received good care from staff and were positive about the care they received. Our observations supported that the care people received was good. People told us that they felt safe living at the home. We saw that staff were caring, kind and respectful to people’s privacy and dignity. People were able to engage in pastimes that suited individual likes. We found that staff had received training and were supported to meet people’s care needs. Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that suitable staff were employed.

Care staff were aware of their responsibility to report incidents of actual or potential abuse. However the providers and management were not aware of their responsibilities and of the agencies they would need to inform. This could have left people at risk of not having any allegations of abuse or harm reported and investigated as required.

We found areas of concern whereby people were at risk of harm or injury. Radiators along corridors were excessively hot placing people at risk of scalding. Risks to people were not always assessed following changes to their care to reduce the likelihood of injury.

We found that staff were not always evidencing that they had administered people’s medicines and balances were not always correct. The storage of medicines was found to be in need of improvement.

The manager and provider had some knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provisions of the MCA are to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own about the care or treatment they receive. At the time of our inspection no one had required any authorisation under DoLS.

We found that people’s health care needs were met and that health professionals were involved with people’s care as appropriate. We found that care plans and risk assessments were in place to identify risks to people’s health and welfare. We found that identified needs were not always able to be fully met due to staffing levels or the need to call additional staff from home.

People told us that they enjoyed the food and that a varied choice was available for them. People’s dietary needs were known to staff and individual wishes incorporated into the menu. Drinks were readily available to people.

People could not be assured that any comments or complaints they had made would be acted upon in a timely way. People had raised concerns about the facilities available to them to have their care needs met. We found that these were not recorded and action to resolve these was lacking.