The inspection took place on 17 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Country Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Country Court accommodates up to 34 older people who may be living with dementia in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection 33 people were using the service.

There was a manager in post who registered with CQC in May 2018. 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.

Although a quality assurance system was in place, further development of this was required to ensure systems within the service were being operated effectively. Further auditing was required to ensure meetings with staff to discuss work performance (supervisions) were carried out in line with the providers policy. Actions from surveys completed by people using the service and their relatives needed to be developed, to demonstrate what had been put in place following people’s feedback. We recommend the quality assurance systems are developed further to ensure these are robust.

Medicines were managed in a safe way and people received them as prescribed. People using the service and relatives confirmed that staff were caring and looked after people’s health and nutritional needs well. Risks to people’s health and well-being were monitored and health care professionals were contacted for their help and advice when required.

People’s dietary needs were met. Food served looked appetising and nutritious. Staff provided support to people at mealtimes in a patient and sensitive way.

People’s care records were personalised and staff were aware of their preferences for care and support. People’s communication needs were known by staff and people were provided with the care, support and equipment they needed to remain independent.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff recruitment processes were robust. Staffing levels provided met people’s needs and they remained under review by the management team. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm and abuse. They had completed safeguarding training and had policies in place to guide them. Staff had access to a range of training. Accidents and incidents were safely monitored and appropriate action taken where this was required.

People told us staff respected their privacy and promoted their dignity. People using the service had their end of life wishes detailed within their care plans. Observations showed staff were compassionate, kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people using the service and knew people well.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, policies and procedures in the service supported this practice.

A range of in house activities was provided and based on people’s preferences. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

The provider had a procedure for receiving and dealing with complaints. Issues raised were used as learning to improve the service provided. Staff spoken with were fully aware of their responsibilities in supporting people if they needed to complain about the service they received. People using the service had access to an advocate.

People using the service, relatives and staff told us the registered manager was approachable and supportive.

We gave feedback to the provider and the registered manager at the end of the inspection. The registere

Country Court is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide care and accommodation for 34 older people some of whom may be living with dementia. All accommodation is on the ground floor and bedrooms are all single occupancy, nine of which have en-suite facilities. There is a large lounge, a dining room and a small conservatory. An additional quiet lounge also has a small conservatory attached, which has been converted into a reminiscences room. People can access an inner courtyard should they wish to sit outdoors.

This inspection took place on 24 March 2016 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected August 2013 and was found to be compliant with the regulations inspected at that time.

At the time of the inspection 33 people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service was run.

People were cared for by staff who had received training in how to recognise abuse and how to report this to the proper authorities. They understood the importance of protecting people from abuse and knew what signs may be apparent if someone was the victim of abuse. Staff who had been recruited safely were provided in enough numbers to meet the needs of the people who used the service. The service was clean and tidy and there were no malodours. People’s medicines were safely handled by staff who had received training.

People who used the service were provided with a varied and nutritional diet which was of their choosing. Information had been recorded about people’s likes and dislikes and this was catered for by the cook. Staff closely monitored the nutritional intake of the people who used the service and made referrals to dieticians when needed. People were weighed on a regular basis. Staff had received training which equipped them to meet the needs of the people who used the service and this was updated regularly. People’s fundamental human rights were protected and legislation was used to protect people if their liberty needed to be compromised for their own safety.

People who used the service were cared for by staff who understood their needs and were kind and caring. Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible. People who used the service or their representatives had been involved with formulating their plan of care and had been involved in reviews about their care.

The registered provider had a complaints procedure which was displayed in the service and provided in the ‘Statement of Purpose’ and the ‘Service User Guide’. This informed people who used the service or other stakeholders they could use the complaints procure if they wished to raise any concerns. All complaints were investigated to the complainants’ satisfaction and information was provided about other agencies to contact if the complainant was not happy with the way their complaint had been investigated. People were provided with a range of activities to pursue both in-house and in the local community. Information was available for staff to refer to which described the person and their preferences about the way they would like to be supported and cared for.

The registered manager undertook audits which ensured the service was well run. People who used the service and other stakeholders were asked for their opinions about how the service was run.

We found people who used the service were involved with their care and they attended meetings about their care. Staff knew how to meet people’s needs and how to ensure their rights were protected and up held.

People were provided with a varied diet and their choices were respected. People told us they were happy with the food. Comments included; “The food is really good”, “You just can’t fault it” and “My favourite is fish and chips, we have this every Friday.”

The environment was clean, tidy and free from clutter. People who used the service were satisfied with the level of cleanliness; comments included, “I came here because it was nice and clean and it has a homely feel.”

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff had also received training which equipped them to meet people’s needs. People who used the service were happy with the care provided; comments included, “I just have to ring my buzzer day or night and the staff are there to help me”, “There are always enough staff on duty and they never rush me” and “The staff are fantastic they help me to stay independent.”

There was a complaints procedure displayed in the home. Complaints were recorded and resolved where possible to the person’s satisfaction. People who used the service knew they had a right to complain or raise concerns with the management team.

We found that people who used the service were involved with their care and could influence the care they received. We also found that people could undertake activities inside and outside of the home if they wished and their rights and choices were respected. Comments included, “We are really looking forward to Christmas”, “I can get up when I like really and just do as I please; there are no strict rules” and “The food is excellent you just can’t complain at all” and “We are having a special Christmas lunch this week.”

We found that staff had access to information about how to meet the needs of the people who used the service and this was updated as people’s needs changed.

We found that people were protected from abuse and staff had received training about how to identify and report any issues they may witness or become aware of. People told us they felt safe at the home and were confident concerns would be supported by management. Comments included, “I feel really safe here and the girls are so kind and caring” and “I would go and see the manager or tell the staff if I had any concerns.”

We found that staff had received training about how to care for the people who used the service and this was updated regularly.

We found that people who used the service could have a say about how the home was run. Other people who had an interest in the welfare of the people who used the service were asked for their views as well.

We did not speak with people who lived in the home during this follow up visit, as there was an outbreak of diarrhoea and vomiting and the home was closed to all but essential visitors.

People spoken with told us they were able to make choices about aspects of their lives.

People told us they had activities to participate in and their opinion, regarding trips out and social activities, was sought during meetings.

People told us they saw a range of professionals to support meeting their health care needs.

People also said that they liked the home for the meals, the cleanliness and the friendliness of the staff. One person also commented that staff members were supportive of families as well as people who lived in the home.

People said, "It’s like a home from home", "They knock on doors and wait for you to tell them to come in" and "They leave me to do what I can but help if needed".