This inspection took place on 30 August 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. Dr Ashdown's Stockton Lodge was last inspected by CQC on 5 April 2016 and was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of 'Good' and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risk or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Dr Ashdown's Stockton Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or 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.

Dr Ashdown's Stockton Lodge accommodates up to 39 older people, some of whom were living with dementia, others had nursing care or mental health needs. On the day of our inspection there were 26 people using the service. People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at Dr Ashdown's Stockton Lodge.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff were supported to provide care to people who used the service through a range of mandatory training, supervision and appraisal. Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible. 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. Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs, in the home and within the local community.

Care records showed people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care plans were written in a person-centred way and were reviewed regularly. Person-centred is about ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. People had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe management and administration of medicines.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. The provider had effective procedures in place for managing the maintenance of the premises and appropriate health and safety checks were carried out. Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place where required.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. The provider had a quality assurance process in place. People who used the service, relatives and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service through meetings and surveys.

This inspection took place on 5 April 2016 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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. The registered manager was not present during our visit however the deputy manager was present and was acting as manager at the time of the inspection.

Dr. Ashdown’s Stockton Lodge was last inspected by CQC on 7 April 2014 and was compliant with the regulations in force at the time.

Dr Ashdown's Stockton Lodge provides care for 39 older people. The home is located in the centre of Seaham close to all the towns’ amenities and transport links. On the day of our inspection there were 25 people using the service. The home comprised of 39 bedrooms, 19 of which were en-suite, set over three floors. The home was set in its own grounds and facilities included several lounges, dining rooms, communal bathrooms and toilets.

People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the standard of care at Dr Ashdown's Stockton Lodge. Without exception, everyone we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they were receiving and described staff as very kind, respectful and caring.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. Training records were up to date and staff received supervisions and appraisals.

There were appropriate security measures in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service and the provider had procedures in place for managing the maintenance of the premises.

The layout of the building provided adequate space for people with walking aids or wheelchairs to mobilise safely around the home and was suitably designed for people with dementia type conditions.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met.

We saw mental capacity assessments had been completed for people and best interest decisions made for their care and treatment. Care records contained evidence of consent.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

People had access to food and drink throughout the day and we saw staff supporting people at meal times when required.

The home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service.

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed. Care plans and risk assessments were in place when required and daily records were up to date. Care plans were written in a person centred way and were reviewed regularly.

We saw staff used a range of assessment tools and kept clear records about how care was to be delivered. People who used the service had access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and complaints were fully investigated.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

This was the first inspection of this location since registration six months ago.

During our inspection we asked the provider, staff and people who used the service specific questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. This is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

People told us they were treated with respect and with dignity by the staff. They said they felt safe. The registered manager set the staff rotas, they told us they took people’s care needs into account when making decisions about the staffing numbers.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they or their representatives were involved in writing their plans of care.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.