This inspection took place on 10 January 2017 and was unannounced. We returned announced on 11 January 2017.

Woodmarket House provides accommodation for up to 42 people. At the time of our inspection 41 people were living at the home. The service is on two floors accessible by stairs and a passenger lift. There are five communal lounge as well as two separate dining areas for people to use. All of the bedrooms are single occupancy. There is also access to a garden area for people to use should they choose to.

People who used the service were safe. They were supported and cared for by staff that had been recruited under recruitment procedures that ensured only staff that were suited to work at the service were employed.

People did not have concerns about their safety and staff knew how to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. People's care plans included risk assessments of activities associated with their personal care and support routines.

The risk assessments provided information for care workers that enabled them to support people safely but without restricting their independence.

There were suitably skilled and knowledgeable staff employed. The registered manager was investigating whether they were effectively deployed to meet the needs of the people using the service.

People were supported to receive the medicines by staff who were trained in medicines management.

Medicines were stored safely and managed safely ensuring people received their medicines when they needed them. Care workers were supported through supervision and training. Relatives told us they felt staff knew what they were doing.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff had awareness of the MCA and understood they could provide care and support only if a person consented to it and if the proper safeguards were put in place to protect their rights. There were people at Woodmarket House who were being cared for under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People enjoyed the food that was offered to them and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. They could choose what they ate and their preferences and requirements were known by staff.

People had access to healthcare professionals to maintain good health.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. The registered manager encouraged staff to become dignity champions. A Dignity Champion is someone who believes passionately that being treated with dignity is a basic human right, not an optional extra. They believe that care services must be compassionate, person centred, as well as efficient, and are willing to try to do something to achieve this.

People’s care plans were centred on their individual needs. Their care and support was based on these. People knew how to raise concerns if they felt they needed to. People were confident these would be taken seriously by the provider.

People had access to a variety of activities if they chose to take part.

The service had effective arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service. These arrangements included asking for people's feedback about the service and a range of checks and audits. The quality assurance procedures were used to identify and implement improvements to people's experience of the service.

Say when the inspection took place and whether the inspection was announced or unannounced. Where relevant, describe any breaches of legal requirements at your last inspection, and if so whether improvements have been made to meet the relevant requirement(s).

Provide a brief overview of the service (e.g. Type of care provided, size, facilities, number of people using it, whether there is or should be a registered manager etc).

N.B. If there is or should be a registered manager include this statement to describe what a registered manager is:

‘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.’

Give a summary of your findings for the service, highlighting what the service does well and drawing attention to areas where improvements could be made. Where a breach of regulation has been identified, summarise, in plain English, how the provider was not meeting the requirements of the law and state ‘You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.’ Please note that the summary section will be used to populate the CQC website. Providers will be asked to share this section with the people who use their service and the staff that work at there.

Our inspection focused on the care and welfare of the people who lived in the home. We looked at some care plans and we talked to the people who lived there, their family members and staff who worked at the home.

We found that people who lived in the home were very happy with how they were treated and that they felt welcome in the home. We saw some people were relaxing with their visitors in one of the lounges, whilst others were watching television and others were making seasonal greetings cards, with assistance from the staff.

One person who lived in the home told us, “I do enjoy my time here.”

A family member told us, “I am really happy with the care X is receiving there.”

We also looked at the physical surroundings within the home and found that the environment was welcoming and safe.

We saw that any comments and complaints were managed well, and in accordance with the Provider’s appropriate policies and procedures.

We also reviewed how the home dealt with information and records of the people who lived at the home and of the staff members. We found that the Provider had clear polices and procedures in place. Information was used, stored and shared securely.