This inspection took place on 27 October 2017 and was unannounced. Blossom Place provides accommodation and personal care for up to 14 people with mental health needs. It is set in a small cul-de-sac and is made up of two unit/blocks and an office building. At the time of this inspection the home was providing care and support to 12 people.

At our inspection on 3 September 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The home demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.

The home had 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 told us they felt safe living at the home. There were safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. People said there was enough staff on duty to meet their care and support needs. Robust recruitment procedures were in place. Medicines were managed appropriately and people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.

People’s needs were assessed and care files included detailed information and guidance for staff about how their needs should be met. Staff had completed training specific to people’s needs, for example, mental health awareness, anxiety and depression. Action was taken to assess any risks to people using the service. People had crisis plans in place with information for staff about actions to be taken to minimise the risk of relapse in their mental health. Staff monitored people’s mental and physical health and where there were concerns people were referred to appropriate health and social care professionals. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted according to this legislation. People knew about the home’s complaints procedure and said they were confident their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

The provider took into account the views of people using the service, staff and health care professionals through surveys. There were regular residents and staff meetings where people using the service and staff were able to talk with the registered manager about what was happening at the home. The provider recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service they provided to people using the service. Staff said they enjoyed working at the home and they received good support from the registered manager.

This inspection took place on 27 October 2017 and was unannounced. Blossom Place provides accommodation and personal care for up to 14 people with mental health needs. It is set in a small cul-de-sac and is made up of two unit/blocks and an office building. At the time of this inspection the home was providing care and support to 12 people.

At our inspection on 3 September 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The home demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.

The home had 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 told us they felt safe living at the home. There were safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. People said there was enough staff on duty to meet their care and support needs. Robust recruitment procedures were in place. Medicines were managed appropriately and people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.

People’s needs were assessed and care files included detailed information and guidance for staff about how their needs should be met. Staff had completed training specific to people’s needs, for example, mental health awareness, anxiety and depression. Action was taken to assess any risks to people using the service. People had crisis plans in place with information for staff about actions to be taken to minimise the risk of relapse in their mental health. Staff monitored people’s mental and physical health and where there were concerns people were referred to appropriate health and social care professionals. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted according to this legislation. People knew about the home’s complaints procedure and said they were confident their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

The provider took into account the views of people using the service, staff and health care professionals through surveys. There were regular residents and staff meetings where people using the service and staff were able to talk with the registered manager about what was happening at the home. The provider recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service they provided to people using the service. Staff said they enjoyed working at the home and they received good support from the registered manager.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies. Staff employed to work at the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living in the home. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. One recent application had been submitted and proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. We found staff had a good understanding about adult safeguarding and they told us they would always escalate any concerns. A safeguarding policy was in place and staff attended regular training sessions.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff they understood people’s care and support needs and they knew them well. One person told us. "I like it here, I feel safe.” Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. We observed during our visit staff managing challenging behaviour in a calm and professional manner. One person told us “the staff are nice they help you.” Another person said” the staff talk to me, they make me feel better.”

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People told us they were happy with the care they received. Records confirmed people’s preferences, history and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided which met their wishes. People had access to activities. People told us they went to a community group and one person said” the hairdresser comes to the home and the staff take us to our appointments to see the doctor.”

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. We found people were asked for their views through an annual survey and regular meetings. The provider had responded to feedback on the need to widen the menu choices and to improve individual access to preferred activities. Staff told us the new manager had an open door policy and they could raise any issues. Staff said they had regular team meetings where they could raise issues. Staff felt there was good team work.

All the people we spoke with told us that staff looked after them well and supported them as and when needed to meet their assessed health and social care needs. Most people we spoke with told us that there were two different things on the menu and sometimes there was a choice of food. However, some people told us that there were not enough activities. For example a person told us: "we sit around like today, it’s more or less like this every day”.

We found where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. Some people were restricted from going out of home and the reasons for these restrictions had been explained to each individual, and / or their consent sought. People received freshly cooked food on a daily basis. All staff had regular supervision and appraisal. The provider had notified the Care Quality Commission of reportable incidents.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

All the people we spoke with told us that staff looked after them well and supported them as and when required to meet their personal care needs. One of them said “I like listening to music” another person told us “I went to the podiatrist today with staff”.

We found people's care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people's care needs and knew how to protect them from risk and harm. However, we found that the provider had not always correctly assessed people’s capacity to make decisions. Some people were restricted from going out of the home and the reasons for these restrictions had not been explained to each individual, or their agreement sought. People did not receive freshly cooked food on a daily basis. Some staff had not received regular supervision and appraisal. In some cases the provider had not notified CQC of reportable incidents. There was evidence that quality monitoring audits have taken place on a regular basis and appropriate changes had been implemented to ensure people received consistent care.

People we spoke with told us that they had a copy of their care plans in their rooms, which set out their needs and the tasks that staff were required to carry out in respect of care and in supporting them. A relative of a person told us that due to a medical condition, her needs had altered, staff did their best, a care review was undertaken with a family member present and a decision was taken to consider a specialist placement to meet the changing health care needs.

People told us that they felt safe and were able to express their views and concerns to staff and the manager. They told us that they received their medicine.

People told us that staff looked after them well and that staff were good. One person told us that staff was “pretty”. Another person said I go out to the corner shop and day centre and I “like” it.

People we spoke with said that staff listened to and consulted them in decisions about their care and daily living in the home.

People told us that they received their medicine regularly. However, some people told us they would like to engage more in local community activities including attending a day centre, but, currently have no such opportunities.

We saw staff responding to people appropriately. People received individual care and attention.

People felt safe and were able to express their views and any concerns. They told us that they knew who to talk to if they have concerns and were confident that it would be actioned appropriately.