This unannounced inspection took place on 30 January 2017. At our last inspection visit in November 2014 we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the law. East Park Court is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 44 people some of which may have dementia. At the time of our inspection 43 people lived at the home.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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 told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff knew what action to take if they had any concerns about people’s safety. People’s risks had been assessed and were managed effectively. People’s medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff available with the appropriate skills to support people’s needs. Staff received training and felt they had the competences to meet people’s needs. The provider had safe processes in place to recruit new staff and carried out pre-employment checks.

People were asked for their consent before staff provided care. Staff understood people’s rights and choices when supporting them. People told us they had sufficient to eat and drink and had access to healthcare professionals when needed. People said staff were caring and discussed their support needs with them. Staff knew people well and supported people to maintain their independence. People felt listened to and able to raise concerns they may have.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and felt supported by the registered manager. Processes were in place to listen to and respond to people’s experiences of the service and audit systems were in place to monitor the quality of care being provided. The registered manager felt supported by the provider to develop the service.

East Park Court is home to 44 older people. There were 42 people at home on the day of our inspection. We observed people during the day. We talked with the deputy manager and a support manager. The registered managers’ post was vacant when we visited but an appointment to the post is due by the end of October 2014. We looked in detail at the care records of six people. We visited on a weekday and we spoke with four relatives. We spoke with three people and three members of staff.

We previously inspected this home in June 2013. At that time we found that people were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider was not ensuring that they were managed safely. During this inspection we found that some areas had been addressed. However other areas around recording and auditing of medication had not been adequately addressed.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. We saw that proper policies and procedures were in place. The manager had an understanding of these safeguards which ensured people’s rights and choices were protected. We saw that the manager was making this system more robust.

We saw people were cared for in an environment that was safe and clean. A relative told us, “The staff are lovely, we can’t fault them.” There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. Risk assessments and health and safety measures were in place to keep people safe.

There were procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse and any risks from the environment. Staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. The staff and manager had a good understanding of whistle blowing policies. This meant people were kept safe.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people were treated with dignity and care. Care plans specified people’s individual needs, for example, a person’s mobility, or food requirements. One relative told us, “The girls are lovely. The activity person is really good.” All the people we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support they received. There was a dedicated activity co-ordinator and an active involvement of people and their relatives within the home. A relative told us, “They have a lot of entertainment here, mom likes the food and everybody is really nice.” People showed us into their rooms and we saw they were clean and welcoming. People had their own belongings in their rooms and appeared happy to go into their room to rest and be quiet when they wished.

Is the service caring?

We saw the staff were patient and gave encouragement when they supported people. A member of staff told us, “It’s good care here, they look after people nice. They talk to people nice.” We observed people having lunch and saw that they were supported to eat at a comfortable pace. One person told us, “The food is lovely, I’m happy here.” All staff were aware of peoples choices, preferences and support needs. We found the care and support was delivered with dignity and respect. One person told us, “My trousers are washed really nice.”

Is the service responsive?

We saw that the service had responded to recent issues around staffing and management. There were cooks and domestic staff to ensure good food was provided and the environment was clean. We saw clear and detailed recording that ensured the manager could make timely and informed decisions about a person’s care and support. We saw that the service responded to complaints and concerns in an appropriate way.

Is the service well-led?

On the day of our visit there was a support manager and a deputy at the home. There was no registered manager in post. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and robust quality assurance processes were in place. People told us they were asked for their feedback on the service they received. People told us that the food was very good and that they were listened to when making a special request. Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They said that they were supported to provide safe and effective care. Staff had regular training and learning opportunities.

We spoke with 7 people out of 42. We also spoke with four staff, the manager and area manager. Where people were not able to clearly express their views we observed how their care was provided to them. We also looked at five people’s care records and other records that supported the running of the home.

People told us that staff showed them respect and we saw staff promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence. People told us staff were, “Very good” and they had choices. An example of this was with food which we heard was, “Very good, would definitely recommend it”.

We saw people received care that was in line with their individual care plans and promoted their health and well-being.

People said they felt safe and staff were able to identify the possibility of abuse and when concerns needed to be reported.

A pharmacist inspector from the Care Quality Commission visited the home. This was in order to look at medicine management. We looked at the medicine administration records for 13 people and how the service stored and managed medicines. We found the provider was not ensuring that appropriate arrangements were in place to manage medicines.

We saw the home had effective systems in place to gain people’s views of the service and regularly monitor the quality of service that people received.

Our Inspection took place on 19 and 20 November 2014 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 10 September 2014. At our previous inspection the provider was not meeting the law in relation to the safe administration of medicines. Following our September 2014 inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. We found people were protected against the risks associated with safe management of medicines. This meant that the provider had addressed our concerns in respect of the management of people’s medication.

East Park Court is registered to provide accommodation and support for 44 older people, some which may have dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people living at the service. The service provides accommodation over two floors. The home does not provide nursing care.

There was a manager in place at the time of our inspection who had recently taken up their post at the home. Although the manager was not registered at the time they gave us a commitment that they planned to do so. 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.

The manager and staff demonstrated awareness of what could constitute abuse and that matters of abuse should be reported in order to keep people safe. Staff were aware of how to report issues to the provider and to outside agencies so that any allegations of abuse would be responded to.

We found there was sufficient staff available across all the units during the day to ensure people received care in a timely way. Comments from some relatives and staff indicated a need to review night staffing levels was needed.

People told us that they, or their families where this was their choice, were able to have involvement in planning and agreeing the care provided to them. We saw that people had an individual plan, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided.

We were told that some people’s rights and freedom were restricted. The provider had put safeguardings in place through Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which help to support the rights of people who lack the capacity to make their own decisions or whose activities had been restricted in some way in order to keep them safe. These were however out of date and needed to be reviewed.

People’s health and well-being was supported by external healthcare professionals, when required, such as district nurses and doctors. There were also regular audits in place to identify specific risks to people’s health, for example monitoring of people’s weight loss and incidents such as falls. We found that staff took appropriate action to respond to these risks.

We saw that people had access to a choice of and sufficient meals and drinks. People were complimentary about the food that was provided to them. We saw that people that needed help with eating were provided with appropriate assistance by staff.

People and relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the service and its staff, describing them as caring. We saw that the way care was provided was consistent with staff providing care that considered the person foremost.

The provider gathered people’s views in a number of ways, for example through the use of surveys, meetings and face to face discussion. We saw that the provider had a complaints procedure that enabled people to raise concerns with these responded to appropriately.

We saw that a number of people had the opportunity to participate in meaningful recreation and occupation but some people commented that there was scope for improvement, with a lack of consistent opportunity for their stimulation available.

Regular audits were carried out by the provider and manager. We saw that some issues identified were been addressed, for example improvement in record keeping so that care plans were accurate and up to date.