Valkyrie Lodge provides accommodation for up to six people who are living with mental health issues. There were five people living in the service on the day of our inspection. The service is located in a converted house that is central to community amenities.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager. 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 service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. 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 to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence and to treat people with respect and dignity.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and also when there was a change in care needs. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.

Valkyrie Lodge provides accommodation for up to six people who are living with mental health issues. There were five people living in the service on the day of our inspection. The service is located in a converted house that is central to community amenities.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager. 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 service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. 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 to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence and to treat people with respect and dignity.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and also when there was a change in care needs. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.

We gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that people were safe and were consenting to their treatment. The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although there were no current applications needed to be submitted. The appropriate staff had been trained and knew when to submit an application. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic and there were appropriate infection control policies in place. Staff were trained and supported with the correct skills to provide care to people.

Is the service effective?

People told us they could contact an advocate if needed. This meant people had independent support when required. People were involved in planning their care needs and this enabled them to maintain their independence.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were relaxed in the company of each other and staff. We saw that staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate they knew people well. One person told us: "I love it here, I have fallen on my feet."

We saw that people were invited twice a year to complete a satisfaction survey which was discussed in community meetings with people and with staff. This told us people were involved in their care and environment.

Is the service responsive?

People were supported to pursue their own interests and hobbies including joining the library, attending yoga and leisure trips in the community. People told us they could talk to the manager if they had a complaint. We saw there were regular community meetings where people could discuss any concerns and the running of the home.

Is the service well-led?

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. We saw staff had regular meetings and supervision with management to discuss the running of the service. Staff told us they felt supported and had received adequate training.

When we visited four people were using the service and we had the opportunity to talk with them all. They told us the care was good and that there was enough who gave them support. Their comments included, “Staff are very polite.” “The support is adequate. I’ve got no problems at all.” “It’s a good place.”

We looked at three care plan files and found that people’s individual needs had been considered and plans detailed the support required. We found that there were systems in place to gain people’s consent to care and treatment.

We also found systems in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision however some systems were lacking regarding cleanliness and infection control procedures.

Four people we spoke to told us they felt happy and safe living at the home.

A person told us, “The home is good and the best place I could come to.” Another person said that staff, “…are all approachable and professional.” A person told us, ”If you want to do something, they [staff] help you.”

During our inspection we saw that people received good care and that staff treated them with respect. We found that staff were trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and worked in ways that kept people safe.

We found that people were cared for by staff that were supported to deliver care and treatment safely to an appropriate standard. Not all quality assurance systems in place were effective in monitoring and improving the service.