The inspection visit took place on 11 July 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

164 Coleshill Road is a residential care home, providing accommodation, support and personal care for up to seven people living with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were seven people living there.

At the last inspection in June 2015, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The home is required to have a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At our last inspection the home had two registered managers who shared their time across the homes operated by the providers; Merevale Care Homes. Sadly, the long serving registered manager, who was also one of the providers, had passed away. At the time of this inspection the home had a registered manager in post, who shared their time between this home and another nearby care home operated by the provider.

People felt safe living at the home and were supported by staff who were trained to protect them from risks of abuse. Most risks were assessed and actions implemented to minimise those risks. However, planned actions were not consistently followed by staff for one person which meant potential risks were not minimised as intended.

People felt there were sufficient staff on shift and the provider’s recruitment processes had ensured workers were safely recruited through a series of checks on their character.

People had their prescribed medicines available to them and most people had guidance available for ‘when required’ medicines. Staff undertaking checks on pharmacy deliveries to the home had not identified a dispensing error.

People were happy with the quality of the care and support they received. They described their care as being given in a way they preferred and they were supported to be as independent as possible.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible, the provider’s values and their policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Living ‘care’ plans contained detailed information about people. This enabled staff to take a person centred approach, which contributed to the positive culture. Staff felt they had received good dementia care training which enabled them to provide a homely environment for people.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals when needed, and felt staff were consistently kind to them.

People had choices about what they ate and drank and their nutritional needs were met.

People and their relative’s feedback was sought by feedback surveys. The provider and registered manager ensured a good service was given to people through regular formal and informal checks.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on Monday 8 June 2015 and was unannounced.

164 Coleshill Road is a care home which provides support and accommodation to a maximum of seven younger people who have dementia. At the time of our visit, six people were living in the home.

The home had two registered managers. 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 provider promoted the philosophy of ‘active co-existence’ which encouraged breaking down barriers between staff and people who lived at the home, and promoted the importance of people living and working together. For example, there were no separate staff toilets, and staff ate their meals with people who lived at the home.

Staff had received training in keeping people safe and understood their responsibility to report any observed or suspected abuse. Where risks associated with people’s health and wellbeing had been identified, there were plans to manage those risks. Risk assessments ensured people could continue to enjoy activities as safely as possible, go out, and maintain their independence.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff received a thorough induction when they started work at the home, and received training to meet people’s health and safety needs, and to understand and work to the ethos of the home. Staff undertook specialised training in dementia care.

The provider and staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS). The provider had made appropriate applications to the local authority in accordance with the DoLS and was following legal requirements.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and to use the skills they had learned and retained during their lives.

People were involved in making decisions about what they had to eat and drink and when necessary were referred to external healthcare professionals to ensure their health and wellbeing was maintained. Medicines were managed so that people received their medication as prescribed.

There had been recent changes to team leaders in the home; however these had been overseen by the registered managers to ensure continuity of support and care to those who lived at the home.

The provider, who was also one of the registered managers, had significant experience and knowledge in working with people living with dementia. As well as managing the home, they supported other people in understanding dementia by offering training to families and attending and speaking at events about dementia care.

We spoke with three people who lived at 164 Coleshill Road about their experiences of the service. We also spoke with a relative about their family member's experience. We observed the care that was given to people during our inspection. We spoke with a range of staff including the registered manager.

People and relatives we spoke with told us that the care planning was discussed with them regularly. We saw that people or their relatives were involved with the care planning of their care.

We found that staff listened to people about their care needs and their wishes. We saw people's independence was promoted within their care plans and on the day of our inspection.

We found that the care plans were person centred and reflected people’s individual needs. We saw that staff supported people as detailed within their care plans. We observed that staff were compassionate and caring when supporting people.

People we spoke with told us that staff were friendly and supported their needs well. We spoke with staff who knew what people's care needs were and how they needed to be supported.

We spoke with two staff members about what they thought abuse was and they showed they had a good awareness of the importance of keeping people safe. They understood their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding potential abuse.

We found the service was well led and there was a system in place to monitor the quality of service being provided.

When we visited 164 Coleshill Road we met with each of the people living there. We spoke with two relatives, the manager and two staff members who were supporting people with their care needs at the time.

We sat and ‘talked’ with people who lived at Coleshill Road; however because of their complex need people were not able to tell us about their experience of care at Coleshill Road. Relatives we spoke with told us, “XX has improved and is going out more,” and “The staff keep me informed and understand XX very well.”

We saw that mealtimes were a relaxed and social occasion and that people had a choice about what they wanted to eat and drink.

Each person had a care plan detailing their support needs, preferred activities and interests. Records we looked at showed that staff communicated people’s changed needs to the manager so that care needs could be re-assessed promptly.

Staff told us they had regular training, which meant they could support the specific needs of people who used the service.