The inspection took place on the 08 and 12 June 2017 and was unannounced. Chestnut Court Care Home provides accommodation and support for up to 25 older people including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people living at the home.

At the last inspection in June 2015, the service was rated Good overall. At this inspection we found that they remained good.

The home had a registered manager who has been registered since January 2017. 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 felt safe living at Chestnut Court Care Home and risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Chestnut Court Care Home to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

People were supported to take their medicines safely from suitably trained staff. People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction programme before being permitted to work unsupervised.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their rights were protected and their liberty was not restricted unlawfully.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

The registered manager maintained a high level of communication with people through a range of newsletters and meetings. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service.

A complaints procedure was in place. There were appropriate management arrangements in place. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

The manager and a senior carer assisted us throughout this inspection. We spoke with five people who lived at the home and two visiting relatives.

Where people had the mental capacity to be involved in making decisions about how they were looked after, their consent had been sought and recorded. Relatives and health professionals had been involved in developing care plans for those people who did not have the mental capacity to be involved in planning their care.

Each person had had their needs assessed and care plans had been developed so that there was a consistent approach for looking after people.

Medication was stored and administered safely. Appropriate records were maintained of medication brought into the home, administered and disposed of.

There were robust recruitment checks carried out to make sure that suitable staff were employed at the home.

There were good systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.

One relative told us, “The staff do over and above what they need to do. I am very happy with the way they look my mother”. One person who lived at the home told us, “I am happy here, the food is good and I get on well with the staff”.

The registered manager of Chestnut Court stopped working for Goldenpride Limited in June 2012 and also ceased managing the home at that time. The deputy manager took over the running of the home for a period of time before taking a temporary leave of absence. At the time of our inspection a temporary manager had been brought in to run the home and they assisted us throughout this inspection.

We spoke with two people living at Chestnut Court who were able to tell us what it was like to live at the home. We also spoke of the number of other residents but they were not able to tell us about their experiences owing to their dementia. We therefore used the SOFI observations to help us understand their experience.

We also spoke with three visiting relatives and with two care workers.

We spent the majority of the inspection sitting in communal areas so that we could observe interactions between people.

We found that people were treated with respect and dignity. Their needs had been assessed and care plans put in place to support people. Their health and welfare needs were appropriately met by a competent and well trained staff team. We found that the home had good systems in place to make sure that the home run efficiently with good outcomes for people.

The inspection took place on the 08 and 12 June 2017 and was unannounced. Chestnut Court Care Home provides accommodation and support for up to 25 older people including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people living at the home.

At the last inspection in June 2015, the service was rated Good overall. At this inspection we found that they remained good.

The home had a registered manager who has been registered since January 2017. 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 felt safe living at Chestnut Court Care Home and risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Chestnut Court Care Home to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

People were supported to take their medicines safely from suitably trained staff. People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction programme before being permitted to work unsupervised.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their rights were protected and their liberty was not restricted unlawfully.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

The registered manager maintained a high level of communication with people through a range of newsletters and meetings. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service.

A complaints procedure was in place. There were appropriate management arrangements in place. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.