This inspection took place on 09 May 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection completed on 09 July 2015 the provider was meeting the requirements of the law. We provided a rating of ‘good’ for the service.

Abbeyfield Parkdale is a residential home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 30 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 27 people living at the service, many of whom were living with dementia. There was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were protected by a staff team who understood how to recognise signs of potential abuse and how to report those concerns. People were protected from risk such as reoccurring accidents. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of care staff who had been recruited safely for their roles. People were cared for by staff who had the skills required to support them effectively.

People were enabled to consent to the support they received. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions about or consent to their own care, the registered manager was using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions in their best interests. People were supported to receive sufficient amounts of food and drink. Any special dietary requirements people had were met. People were supported to maintain their day to day health.

People were supported by a care staff team who were kind and caring towards them. People were enabled to make choices and to maintain their independence. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and protected by care staff. People were also supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them.

People received care and support that met their needs. People’s changing needs were communicated by care staff through handover meetings. People were involved in activities and leisure opportunities. People felt able to raise a complaint where this was required and their concerns were addressed.

People were not always protected by effective quality assurance systems that identified areas of risk and improvement needed within the service. Records were not always accurately maintained and updated when required.

People felt the service was well-led and they were involved in sharing their views and making changes within the service. They were supported by a staff team who were motivated in their roles and felt well supported by managers.

This report states the registered manager is Miss A Massey who was not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still identified as a registered manager on our register at the time.

We spoke with five people who lived at the home. We observed how care was provided to people, looked at three people’s records and spoke with four staff and the deputy manager.

People told us they were asked for their consent in respect of daily routines. We saw staff gained consent from people who were not able to express their views through observation of their reactions.

People we spoke with expressed overall satisfaction with the care they received. One person said, “There is not one staff that is not kindness itself”.

People told us they had a choice of meals and were always offered alternatives if they did not want what was on the menu. We saw people that needed help to eat were assisted in accordance with assessments carried out by external health professionals.

People told us they felt safe at the home. One person told us, “I do feel safe and well looked after”.

We saw the provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of service.

Our inspection took place on 9 and 13 July 2015 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 17 October 2013 and we did not identify any areas where the provider was not meeting the law at this time.

Abbeyfield Parkdale provides personal care and accommodation for to 30 older people. There were 25 people living at the service when we carried out our inspection.

The service did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection, although the manager who was at the service at the time of our inspection is now registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 told us that they felt safe and they were treated well by staff. They told us how they were cared for in a safe way which also maintained their independence. The manager and staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and escalate any concerns appropriately. People told us that there were enough competent staff to ensure the care they received was safe and addressed their needs and wishes in a timely manner. We found that the provider ensured people’s medicines were managed in a safe way.

People told us, and we saw care and support was provided in a way that showed staff were kind and considerate. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs, and were supported with appropriate training. People were supported to make their own decisions and choices by staff who understood and promoted people’s rights and worked in their best interests. People’s healthcare needs were promoted and regular appointments with healthcare professionals were maintained.

People told us they liked the staff. We saw people had developed positive working relationships with the staff who supported them. People told us that they were well cared for and staff understood what was important to them. They told us they were satisfied with the way care and support was provided to them, and this reflected their individual preferences. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of what was important for people and what was recorded in their care records.

People's needs were assessed and their support plans provided staff with guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met. Staff were able to tell us how people preferred their care and support to be delivered. People participated in a range of activities and were regularly supported to when they wished to access facilities and amenities in the local community that reflected their individual interests and preferences. People knew who to speak with if they had any concerns.

The provider assessed and monitored the quality of the service. There were systems in place to gain people’s views on the service and these views were acted upon. In addition there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service such a range of management audits. People and staff told us they found the manager and other senior staff approachable and were able to share their views about the service with them. Staff felt well supported by the provider and were aware of the provider’s values and vision in aiming to provide good quality care.