This inspection took place on 1 and 2 August 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. Beddell House was last inspected by CQC on 13 November, 9 and 11 December 2015 and was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of 'Good' and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risk or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Beddell House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Beddell House accommodates up to 60 older people who require personal care. On the day of our inspection there were 37 people using the service. People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at Beddell House.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff were supported to provide care to people who used the service through a range of mandatory training, supervision and appraisal. Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs, in the home and within the local community.

Care records showed people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care plans were written in a person-centred way and were reviewed regularly. Person-centred is about ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account. Care plans were in place that recorded people’s plans and wishes for their end of life care.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. People had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe management and administration of medicines.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. The provider had effective procedures in place for managing the maintenance of the premises and appropriate health and safety checks were carried out. Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place where required.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. The provider had a quality assurance process in place. People who used the service, relatives and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service through meetings and surveys.

During our visit we found people were asked for their consent before they received any care or treatment and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We spoke with several people who used the service. They said staff respected their choices to make informed decisions and have control of their lives. One person told us, “I’m always asked how I feel about things - people aren’t making decisions without my say so.” One relative told us, “The staff talk to us all the time, they make sure we are kept up to date with anything that happens or if we’re worried about (our relative’s) health.”

We found care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way which ensured people’s safety and welfare. One person who lived at the home told us, “This home is excellent, you can’t fault them. Just look around you and watch what the staff do.” Another person said, “It’s like the best hotel I’ve ever stayed at, and with care as well.” One visitor told us, “It’s a cross between a hotel and sheltered housing where you can get care if you need it. It suits a lot of people who can have varying degrees of care as and when they need it.”

The provider had made suitable arrangements to protect vulnerable people and respond appropriately to any allegation of abuse.

The provider had taken steps to make sure people at the home were protected from staff who were unsuitable to work with vulnerable people by carrying out thorough background checks.

We found the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and promote their health and wellbeing.

During our visit we found People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. We spoke with several people who used the service and their relatives. They said staff respected their privacy and dignity. They told us staff knocked on their bedroom doors before entering and were polite to them. One person told us, “I am respected; they take care of me and have a sense of humour but they know I won’t allow swearing in my rooms.”

We found that care and treatment at the home was planned and delivered in a way which ensured people’s safety and welfare. People at the home said they felt involved in decisions about their care and wellbeing.

One person told us, “If I tell them I need a doctor in the morning he’s here by lunchtime.”

During our visit we found that prescribed medicines were given to people appropriately and they received the treatment they needed.

We found that staff received appropriate professional development at Beddell House. People told us they were happy with the support they received from staff. One person told us, “The staff are very good. You don’t have to worry about them not doing their job.”

We found that people who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about the care and treatment offered. Their responses were acknowledged and acted on. One person told us, “You’d be hard pressed to find something to complain about.” Another said, “The care here is very good, staff are conscientious.”

“Any requests or comments are noted and dealt with promptly, and helpful suggestions made",

"The people here are sensible, responsive and supportive",

"When I first arrived at Beddell House I was very unhappy at what was happening to me. The staff quickly made me feel very welcome. From day one they have supported and cared for me and have continued to do so",

"The people here are sensible, responsive and supportive. What's more, they are friendly at all times in my experience" ,

Equally caring and supportive, making one feel an important part of the family",

"Staff are very focused in their responsibilities", A lot of kindness and patience are shown",

"Staff have been very helpful and caring",

"We are very lucky, staff have been well selected",

Beautiful grounds and lovely views",

"A beautiful setting",

"Most of it is very impressive",

"The grounds are well kept, the house is regularly cleaned and dusted" ,

"It is difficult to find an adverse comment, which I find very comforting",

"Care staff on the floor are excellent (100%)",

"I find the staff are caring in many ways" and

"Staff have all been very helpful and caring",

This inspection took place on 13 November, 9 December and 11 December 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Beddell House provides care and accommodation for up to 60 people who require personal care. On the day of our inspection there were 45 people using the service.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

Beddell House was last inspected by CQC on 16 August 2013 and was compliant.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service.

Accidents and incidents were recorded, analysis was carried out regarding causes and appropriate referrals had been made.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Staff training was up to date and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. The provider was working within the principles of the MCA.

People who used the service, and family members, were complimentary about the standard of care at Beddell House.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

We saw that the home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they moved into Beddell House and care plans were written in a person centred way.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people who used the service, and family members, were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

The service had good links with the community and other organisations.