The inspection took place on 6 and 8 June 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be coming.

This was the first time we had inspected the service since it was registered on 17 May 2017.

Waverley Lodge 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. Waverley Lodge provides personal and nursing care and support for up to 45 people who require support with personal care, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 38 people living there.

The service had 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 and their relatives told us people were safe living at the service. Staff had completed training in safeguarding people and the registered manager actively raised any safeguarding concerns with the local authority.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed. Environmental risk assessments were also in place.

People’s medicines were administered in accordance with best practice and managed in a safe way. People received their medicines in a timely way and in line with prescribed instructions.

People and relatives told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited in a safe way with all necessary checks carried out prior to their employment.

Staff received regular training, supervisions and annual appraisals to support them in their roles. They also received specialised training, specific to people’s needs.

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 meet their nutritional needs and to access a range of health professionals. Information of healthcare intervention was included in care records and a GP routinely visited the service weekly.

People and relatives spoke highly of staff and felt the service was caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when supporting them with daily tasks.

People had access to Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) and independent advocacy services if they wished to receive support. Information related to services was on display in the home.

People’s physical, mental and social needs were assessed prior to them moving into the home. Care plans were personalised, detailed and reviewed regularly and included people’s personal preferences.

There was a range of activities available for people to enjoy in the home. People were also supported, where necessary, to access activities in the local community including going for walks and shopping.

There were audit systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The views of people and staff were sought by the registered manager via annual questionnaires. Information collected was analysed and any identified actions were carried out and reported back to people and staff.