This inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 and 24 October 2018.

We had previously inspected the home on 26 July 2017, when it was under a different provider. The home was registered under a new provider on 30 October 2017, however the registered manager and other staff remained the same. This was our first inspection since the location had been re-registered with us.

Turnpike Court 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.

Turnpike Court accommodates up to 53 people across two separate units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. One of the units had recently opened following a refurbishment of the home. At the time of the inspection there were 35 people receiving a service.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager was unavailable during the inspection. The quality compliance manager was currently supporting the home in the registered manager’s absence.

Overall people were positive and complimentary about the service.

We found minor shortfalls in the safe management of medicines. There were some issues relating to the accurate recording of the support people required with medicines. The compliance manager acted promptly to address the issues raised.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. There were some mixed views about the timeliness of staff responses. The management team regularly reviewed staffing levels. Recruitment of new staff was underway and staffing levels were due to be increased. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.

Risk assessments were in place which covered topics such as moving and handling and risk of falls. Action taken to assess and manage risks had not always been clearly recorded.

Staff understood their responsibility to protect people from abuse and harm. The provider had policies in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistleblowing. Staff we spoke with had an understanding of the signs of abuse and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns.

The home was clean and well maintained. We noted some potential environmental health and safety risks which were dealt with immediately during the inspection.

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 were supported by staff who were suitably trained and supervised.

People's nutritional and healthcare needs had been assessed and were met. People were positive about the food on offer and staff supported people to have sufficient to eat and drink. Staff were responsive to changes in people’s physical and mental health needs.

We observed that staff had developed caring relationships and treated people in a kind and compassionate manner. People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect.

People received care that was centred around their individual needs. People spoken with confirmed their choices were respected.

Most aspects of the care plans we viewed were detailed and reflected people’s individual likes and preferences. However, we noted occasional gaps in the information contained and some did not contain as much detail as others.

Work was underway to support staff to ensure life plans contained up to date information, including individual consultation with people about their preferences.

People could take part in person-centred activities and were encouraged to