Belgravia Care Home is situated on the seafront at Blackpool North. Accommodation is provided over five floors. All bedrooms are single occupancy with en-suite facilities. There are several communal areas. There is a passenger lift to all floors. There is a small car park at the front of the home.

At the time of the inspection 23 people lived at the home.

The inspection visit took place on 11 October 2018 and was unannounced.

There had been a change of registered manager since the last inspection. The new manager had started the process of applying to CQC to become registered. 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.

Until shortly before the inspection the service had provided care for several service user bands including people with learning disabilities. However, in reflecting on Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance, the providers had felt the service they provided did not fit with this philosophy. They stated they would no longer admit people with learning disabilities to the home and modified their statement of purpose to reflect this change.

There were sufficient staffing levels in place for the people supported when we inspected. However, the service had applied to CQC to increase the numbers of people supported from 23 to 25 and accommodation would be provided over five floors. To make sure staffing was sufficient to meet people’s dependency needs and support people throughout the building, we made a recommendation that staffing be kept under review so people remained safe.

People told us they felt safe and looked after by staff. We observed interactions between staff and people. These were positive friendly and supportive. There were procedures in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. We saw risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people. These had been kept under review and were personalised to meet people’s needs.

Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines when needed and appropriate records had been completed.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. The staff team used electronic care records these were in the main informative and personalised. However, a small amount of information generated by the system was either generalised or conflicted with the personalised information staff had recorded. There was a mix of views from people about their level of involvement in care plans. Although they said they had been involved in making decisions about their care. The new manager said she would encourage people to be more involved with reviewing their care planning.

Staff had been recruited safely and received training to develop their skills and knowledge. They also received regular one to one supervision to discuss, current care provided, future plans and any support or training need. These measures assisted them to provide safe and effective support.

We saw people had access to healthcare professionals. People told us staff cared for them in the way they wanted and met their care needs promptly. They referred them to healthcare professionals in a timely way. We saw and people told us staff provided care in a way that respected peoples’ dignity, privacy and independence.

We saw staff were attentive to people’s needs and wellbeing and responded promptly to requests for assistance. They provided care in a personalised way, taking people’s preferences into account. One person told us, “The staff are all very friendly here. They are very helpful.” Staff were aware the importance of upholding people’s rights and diverse needs and treated people with respect and care.

People told us they enjoy