We carried out this unannounced inspection on 15 December 2016.

Wispington House Limited is situated in the village of Saxilby in Lincolnshire. The home provides residential care and support for up to 26 older people, some of whom live with memory loss associated with conditions such as dementia. There were 24 people living in the home at the time of this inspection.

There was a registered manager in place at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 living at the home. Staff understood how to identify, report and manage any concerns related to people’s safety and welfare.

The registered provider had robust recruitment processes in place and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed to ensure they were safe to work at the home.

Staff were well supported and had received training in order to enable them to provide care in a way which ensured people’s individual needs were met.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of this inspection two people who lived in the home had their freedom restricted and a further seven people were awaiting the outcomes of their assessments for a DoLS authorisation. The registered persons had acted in accordance with the MCA and DoLS guidance to ensure people had their rights protected.

There was a warm, friendly and caring atmosphere in the home throughout the visit. People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff recognised people’s right to privacy, respected confidential information and promoted people’s dignity.

Staff knew how to manage and minimise any identified risks and provided the care needed as described in each person’s care record. Care was supported through staff having access to a range of visiting health and social care professionals when they required both routine and more specialist help. Clear arrangements were also in place for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of any unused medicines which were no longer needed.

Staff worked closely with people and their families to ensure each person was supported to maintain and further develop their individual interests and hobbies and to have a meaningful and enjoyable life. In addition staff provided a varied programme of communal activities for those who wished to participate in them.

People also received a range of nutritious foods and drinks that met their assessed needs as well as their choices and preferences.

There was a positive culture within the home which was based on openness and inclusion. People, their relatives and staff members were encouraged to express their views. The provider and registered manager listened and took action to resolve any issues or concerns identified. More formal systems were also in place for handling and resolving complaints.

The provider and registered manager worked together consistently and maintained regular communication in order to regularly assess and monitor the quality of all the services provided. This approach ensured that any shortfalls in quality could be quickly identified and actions taken to keep improving and developing the service.