This inspection took place on 29 January 2019 and was unannounced. Chapel Hill care home is a mental health project which provides accommodation and support for up to 21 people with the aim of preparing people to move on to independent living. People in care homes receive accommodation and 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. At the time of the inspection the home was providing care and support to 21 people.

At our previous inspection in July 2016 we identified that improvements were needed relating to safe care and treatment. One to one sessions with keyworkers were not always documented after meetings and Care Programme Approach (CPA) review meeting reports were not always available in people's care files.

At this inspection we saw that the provider had made some improvement; CPA review meeting reports were available in people’s support files. However, one to one sessions with keyworkers were still not being documented.

We also found that inhouse six-monthly reviews were not always carried out. This included completing and/or monitoring the ‘Recovery Star’ which was developed by Triangle in collaboration with the Mental Health Providers Forum and enables people using the service to measure their own progress with the support of staff. The provider did not have effective processes in place to monitor the quality of the service as they had not identified the issues we found at this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

There was 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection, we found that medicines were securely stored and managed safely. Risks were assessed and appropriate risk management plans were in place to provide guidance for staff on how to minimise any risks. Accidents and incidents were logged and investigated in a timely manner. Staff had received infection control training and people were protected from the risk of infection. There were appropriate safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew who to contact to report their concerns. There were enough staff deployed to meet people's care and support needs and appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work.

Staff completed an induction when they started working for the service and they were supported through regular training and supervision to enable them to effectively carry out their roles. People's needs were assessed prior to joining the service to ensure their needs could be met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff told us they asked for people’s consent before offering support. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People had access to healthcare professionals when required to maintain good health to ensure people received the support they needed. The environment had been adapted to meet people's needs.

Staff were kind, caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were involved in making decisions about their daily care and support needs. People were encouraged and supported to be independent if possible. People were provided with information about the service when they joined in the form of a 'service user guide' so they were aware of the services on offer.

People were involved in planning their care, and thei

This inspection took place on 13 May 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection of the service in December 2013 we found the provider was meeting the regulations we looked at.

Chapel Hill Care Home is a mental health project which provides accommodation and support for up to 21 people with the aim to prepare people to move on to independent living..

Chapel Hill Care 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection we found that improvement was required. Detailed records of one to one keyworker meetings were not maintained to support staff in recognising risks to people. Reports of Care Program Approach (CPA) review meetings were not always maintained on people’s care files. Failure to maintain these reports meant that staff may not be aware of any issues arising from these meetings.

People using the service said they felt safe and that staff treated them well. Safeguarding adults procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Medicine records showed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. The provider conducted appropriate recruitment checks before staff started work. The provider had carried out appropriate pre-employment checks to ensure staff were suitable and fit to support people using the service.

Staff training was up to date. Staff received supervision, appraisals and training appropriate to their needs and the needs of people who they supported to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. There were processes in place to ensure staff new to the service were inducted into the service appropriately.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and people's privacy and dignity was respected. People were provided with information about the service when they joined in the form of a 'service user guide' which included the service's complaints policy.

People were involved in their care planning and the care and support they received was personalised and staff respected their wishes and met their needs. Support plans and risk assessments provided clear information for staff on how to support people using the service with their needs. Support plans were reflective of people's individual care needs and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to be independent where possible such as attending to some aspects of their own personal care.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs. Staff were committed to offering people a good service that improved the quality of their lives and allowed them to be part of the wider community. There were a variety of activities on offer that met people’s needs. People’s cultural needs and religious beliefs were recorded to ensure that staff took account of people’s needs and wishes.

People knew about the service’s complaints procedure and said they believed their complaints would be investigated and action taken if necessary.

People told us they thought the service was well run and that the registered manager was supportive. There were effective processes in place to monitor the quality of the service and the registered manager recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service provided. People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to provide feedbac