White Hill House Residential Home is a family run care home which accommodates up to eight older people. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living in the home.

White Hill House are not required to have a registered manager in place because they are the sole provider and the registered provider has overall responsibility for the day to day management of the service. Registered persons have been registered with the Care Quality Commission and 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 inspection took place on 12 and 17 July 2017 and was carried out by one inspector. This was unannounced which meant staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting.

People told us they were happy living in the home. One person told us, “I only came here for a short break, that was four years ago”. Another person told us, “It’s not a care home it’s a home.”

A relative we spoke with told us, “It’s very good, dad is happy here and that’s what it’s about.”

Medicines were managed safely staff completed appropriate training and had their competency assessed before they administered medicines. Medicine charts were kept up to date and people received their medicines that had been prescribed by the GP.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the service had policies and procedures to support this.

The service ensured individual risks to people’s health care and welfare had been assessed with risk management plans in place. They were regularly reviewed and updated where changes were evident.

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of people who lived at the service and what support they required and what they could do for themselves. People were involved in their care and support needs and where appropriate relatives were involved.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff employed were of good character and fit to undertake their role. Staff undertook an induction and on-going training thereafter. Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed their role and had regular supervisions with the manager. They told us they could raise any concerns at any time and were fully aware of the whistle blowing policy and were confident to raise any concerns to the relevant authority.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how this applied to their role. However, where people lacked capacity and their liberty was restricted in their best interests, the correct legal procedures had not been followed. We discussed this with the manager of the service who told us this was being addressed.

Feedback received by the service was used to drive improvements. The manager and staff monitored the quality of the service by regularly undertaking a range of audits and discussing any issues with people to ensure they were satisfied with the service they received. There was a complaints procedure in place, people told us they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to but there had been no reason to do this. They told us if something bothered them they would speak to staff in the first instance.

Arrangements were in place for responding to emergencies. Personal evacuation plans in the event of a fire were completed for people living in the home. These were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained up to date.

White Hill House Residential Home for the Elderly is a family run care home which accommodates up to 8 people. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home.

White Hill House Residential Home for the Elderly are not required to have a registered manager in place because they are a sole provider and the registered provider has overall responsibility for the day to day management of the home. Registered persons have been registered with the Care Quality Commission and 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 inspection took place on 24 July 2015 and was carried out by one inspector. This was an unannounced inspection which meant staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting.

There was a warm, friendly atmosphere within the home and people received care and support in an unrushed calm manner. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and made time to sit with people and spend some quality time with them on a one to one basis.

It was evident staff had built up good positive relationships with people who lived in the home and with their families and friends.

Staff were very knowledgeable about the needs and histories of people who lived in the home and what they required support with and what they could do themselves.

The service worked in a way which kept people safe from harm. Any individual risks to people’s health, care and welfare had been assessed with risk management plans in place to prevent them from any avoidable harm. Any health and safety concerns were documented in people’s care and support plans. They were regularly reviewed and updated where any changes were evident.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff employed were of good character and fit to undertake their role. Staff were provided with an induction, on going training and supervision to ensure they met people’s care and support needs safely and competently.

Staff we spoke with were happy working in the home. They were familiar with the whistle blowing policy and were confident to raise any allegations of poor practice to the management team.

There was a complaints procedure in place, although people we spoke with told us they had no reason to complain, that they were happy with the care and support they received. Likewise a relative we spoke with told us there had been no reason to raise any formal complaints. They told us that if they had any concerns they would speak with the provider, their deputy or staff and felt confident that any concerns raised would be dealt with appropriately.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and how it related to people living in the home. The MCA sets out what must be done to ensure the human rights of people, who may lack capacity to make decisions, are protected. This includes decisions about depriving people of their liberty so they get the care and support that they need, where there is no less restrictive way to achieve this.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of capacity and consent, and acting in people’s best interests.

People's health, social and personal care needs had been assessed before a placement at the home had begun. This ensured their needs could be met appropriately.

Care plans addressed people's individual needs, were detailed, reviewed and updated regularly. People had access to healthcare professionals and specialist support to ensure they kept healthy and well. The care and support was planned and delivered in line with their care plan.

There were safe established systems in place for the management of medicines and people told us they received their medication on time.

The premises were nicely decorated, comfortable and kept warm. Each person had their own room, which they had personalised to their taste.

People told us they felt safe and they had no concerns about the care and support they received. They found the staff and management approachable and knew who to speak with if they had any concerns.

Daily activities were provided for those who wished to take part. Family and friends were welcomed and invited to occasions celebrated in the home.

Comments we received about the service were very positive. One person said '' It's very nice here the staff are very good and kind they do all I want them to do.'' Another told us ''I have settled in well, I am very happy here.'' A relative told us ''their welcome to everyone is very good. Their level of care is above the call of duty. They truly do care for the residents.''

People told us that they had been given the opportunity to visit the home before they moved in to ensure it met with their needs and expectations. They said that the staff treated them as individuals and respected their views and choices. They told us they were consulted with about any changes to their care and support and were able to make decisions about their day to day care.

They said that they were supported to access health services when required and enabled to take part in activities. They liked the staff who worked at the home and said they were always very caring and attentive to their needs and well being.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us ''I am as happy as I could be...I have a very nice room and they always knock on the door before entering. They are very good and if I had concerns I would speak to X (named staff member). Another person told us on their third day of being at the home, ''I woke up and thought this is where I want to be and I have been here ever since. I wouldn't look back I am very happy here.''

People's needs were assessed and the care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The care plans were very individualised and informed of people's individual likes and dislikes and how they wished staff to support them.

People had access to healthcare professionals and specialist support to ensure they kept healthy and well.

Whilst people were provided with the care and support they required, the provider had not ensured that people were protected against the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care through maintaining an accurate record in respect of each service user's health and support needs.

Activities were provided for those who wished to take part. They included one to one activities and group sessions both within the home and the local community. They were tailored to people's likes and dislikes to ensure their social care needs were met appropriately.