We carried out an inspection of Castleford Home for Older People on 15 and 16 March 2017. The first day was unannounced.

Castleford Home for Older People provides accommodation and personal care for 46 older people. The home is located close to the centre of Clitheroe. Accommodation is provided on two floors in 46 single bedrooms. The home is divided into four areas, known as Henthorn Court, Edisford Court, Castleview Court and the community beds area. Henthorn Court and Edisford Court provide care for people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

At the last inspection on 11 and 12 May 2014, we asked the provider to make improvements to the recruitment process for new staff and ensure people were appropriately supported to eat and drink. Following the inspection, the provider sent us an action plan which set out what action they intended to take to improve the service. During this inspection, we found some improvements had been made in order to meet the regulations.

Safeguarding adults’ procedures were in place and staff understood how to protect people from abuse. Risks associated with people’s care were identified, assessed and recorded. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place which ensured only those staff suitable for the role were in post. People's medicines were managed appropriately and people received their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.

Staff had completed an induction programme when they started work and they were up to date with the provider's mandatory training. The registered manager and staff understood the main principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and acted according to this legislation. There were appropriate arrangements in place to support people to have a varied and healthy diet. People had access to a GP and other health care professionals when they needed them.

Staff treated people in a respectful and dignified manner and people's privacy was respected. People were involved in the development and review of their care plans. This meant people were able to influence the delivery of their care and staff had up to date information about people’s needs and wishes. We observed people were happy, comfortable and relaxed with staff. Care plans and risk assessments provided guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs and were reviewed regularly. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and supported to participate in a variety of daily activities.

The complaints procedure provided information on the action to take if a person wished to raise any concerns. People were aware of the complaints procedure and processes and were confident they would be listened to.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and ensure people received safe and effective care. The registered manager took into account people’s views about the quality of care provided through discussion, meetings and satisfaction surveys. The registered manager used the feedback to make ongoing improvements to the service.

During our inspection we spoke with nine people living in the home and two relatives. We found people were satisfied with the service provided, one person told us, “It’s very nice here and I’m being well looked after” and another person commented, “I’m happy and comfortable”. The relatives spoken with were also complimentary about the service.

People’s care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had individual care plans which were supported by risk assessments and daily care records. The manager took immediate action to rectify some shortfalls found in the care plans and developed a detailed care plan audit tool to prevent issues reoccurring.

People were provided with a well maintained and comfortable environment. Appropriate arrangements were in place for routine repairs and maintenance.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People made complimentary comments about the staff team and staff were observed to have a respectful and sensitive approach to meeting people’s needs.

We found there were established systems to monitor the quality and operation of the service. We saw evidence to demonstrate that people were regularly consulted about their opinion of the service and their comments were used to shape future developments in the home.

People were satisfied with the service provided, one person told us, “I am very well looked after, the staff have been marvellous” and another person said the home was “excellent”. People told us their rights to privacy, dignity and independence were upheld and respected.

People’s care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had individual care plans which were supported by a series of risk assessments and daily care records. This meant people’s care could be readily monitored and evaluated.

Staff had an understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adult procedures and knew who to contact in the event of a concern.

Suitable arrangements were in place to manage medication.

Staff were provided with appropriate training opportunities and received regular supervision.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.

People told us they were happy living in the home and they were able to express their views and opinions about the care they were provided. One person said “The staff are very good, I don’t think they could be bettered”. Whilst some people said they were not aware of their care plans, people spoken with felt they were well cared for and the staff respected their rights to privacy and dignity.

People made complimentary comments about the food and confirmed they were offered a choice each mealtime in line with their preferences. However, nutritional risks were not always assessed and properly monitored.

Visitors were welcome in the home at any time and people said they were supported to maintain good contact with their family and friends. Relatives spoken with were very satisfied with the quality of care provided and felt that their family members were looked after in a caring and sensitive manner.

People made positive comments about the staff team and felt they could talk to the any of the staff or the manager if they had a problem or query.

We carried out an inspection of Castleford Home for Older People on 12 and 13 May 2015. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

Castleford Home for Older People provides accommodation and personal care for 45 older people. The home is located close to the centre of Clitheroe. Accommodation is provided on two floors in 45 single bedrooms, 14 of the bedrooms have an ensuite toilet and wash basin. The home is divided into four units, known as Henthorn Court, Eddisford Court, Castleview Court and the Rehabilitation Unit. Henthorn Court and Eddisford Court provide care for people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 43 people living in the home.

There was a manager in post, who was in the final stages of registration with the commission. 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.

We last inspected this service on 9 September 2013 and found it to be meeting the regulations in force at the time.

During this inspection, we found the provider needed to make improvements to the recruitment process and supporting people to eat their meals. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People told us they felt safe and were well cared for in the home. Staff knew about safeguarding and we saw concerns had been dealt with appropriately, which helped to keep people safe.

There were adequate numbers of staff on duty to support people safely and ensure that people’s needs were met appropriately.

Systems and processes in place ensured that the administration, storage, disposal and handling of medicines were safe.

Staff had the opportunity to complete training which was relevant to their role. However, we found the training records were unclear and one member of staff had not completed the induction workbook at the start of their employment. The manager assured us they had plans in place to address these issues.

Staff understood the processes in place to protect people who could not make decisions and followed the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People had a good choice of meals and were able to get snacks and drinks throughout the day.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment to meet their individual needs. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

People were relaxed, comfortable and happy with the staff that supported them. Staff talked with people in a friendly manner and assisted people as required, whilst encouraging them to be as independent as possible.

Each person had an individual care plan. The care plans were well presented and contained information about people’s personal preferences and any risks to their well-being.

People and their relatives knew who to speak to if they wanted to raise a concern. There were systems in place for responding to complaints.

We saw there was a system of audits in place to monitor the quality of the service and people and staff were given opportunities to express their views and provide feedback on the service.