This inspection took place on 28 February 2017 and was unannounced. The last inspection of the service was in January 2016 when we found two breaches of the regulations. The provider sent us an action plan in February 2016 and said they had already taken action to address the issues we identified. We found at this inspection that the provider had made improvements in the areas we identified at our last inspection. They had reviewed care planning systems in the service and provided dignity training for care staff.

Eastbury Nursing Home is a care home with nursing for up to 20 people who have mental health needs. Some people also had additional physical needs or learning disabilities. At the time of this inspection, 18 people were using the service, although one person was in hospital on the day we visited.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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 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 appointed a new manager in January 2017 and they told us they would begin the process to apply for registration with CQC.

People were safe because the provider and staff operated systems to protect them from abuse. The provider also assessed risks to people using the service and gave staff clear guidance on how to manage risks they identified. We have made a recommendation that the provider should review their safeguarding policy and procedures to include the latest guidance.

There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs and the provider carried out checks on new staff before they started to work in the service. Staff had the training they needed to care for and support people using the service.

We saw no examples of people being deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

Staff ensured people had access to the health care services they needed and people received the medicines they needed safely.

People told us they enjoyed the food provided in the service.

Some parts of the service were in need of refurbishment and redecoration.

People using the service told us staff were caring and treated them with respect and people were able to choose where they spent their time.

People’s health and personal care needs were recorded in their care plans with guidance for staff on the support they needed. People’s care records also included their social care needs and the provider arranged appropriate activities.

The provider recorded and responded to complaints from people using the service and others.

The atmosphere in the service was open, welcoming and inclusive.

The provider had appointed a qualified and experienced manager to oversee the day to day operation of the service.

The provider had systems in place to monitor quality in the service and make improvements.

This inspection took place on 28 February 2017 and was unannounced. The last inspection of the service was in January 2016 when we found two breaches of the regulations. The provider sent us an action plan in February 2016 and said they had already taken action to address the issues we identified. We found at this inspection that the provider had made improvements in the areas we identified at our last inspection. They had reviewed care planning systems in the service and provided dignity training for care staff.

Eastbury Nursing Home is a care home with nursing for up to 20 people who have mental health needs. Some people also had additional physical needs or learning disabilities. At the time of this inspection, 18 people were using the service, although one person was in hospital on the day we visited.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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 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 appointed a new manager in January 2017 and they told us they would begin the process to apply for registration with CQC.

People were safe because the provider and staff operated systems to protect them from abuse. The provider also assessed risks to people using the service and gave staff clear guidance on how to manage risks they identified. We have made a recommendation that the provider should review their safeguarding policy and procedures to include the latest guidance.

There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs and the provider carried out checks on new staff before they started to work in the service. Staff had the training they needed to care for and support people using the service.

We saw no examples of people being deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

Staff ensured people had access to the health care services they needed and people received the medicines they needed safely.

People told us they enjoyed the food provided in the service.

Some parts of the service were in need of refurbishment and redecoration.

People using the service told us staff were caring and treated them with respect and people were able to choose where they spent their time.

People’s health and personal care needs were recorded in their care plans with guidance for staff on the support they needed. People’s care records also included their social care needs and the provider arranged appropriate activities.

The provider recorded and responded to complaints from people using the service and others.

The atmosphere in the service was open, welcoming and inclusive.

The provider had appointed a qualified and experienced manager to oversee the day to day operation of the service.

The provider had systems in place to monitor quality in the service and make improvements.

At the time of our inspection there were 17 people using the service. We spoke with three of these people, the deputy manager and two other members of staff. We were unable to speak with some people who were using the service as they had complex needs which meant they were unable to share their views with us. However, we observed care in the home, spoke with staff and viewed records to gather information about people's experiences.

People were asked for their consent before care and treatment were provided and staff were able to demonstrate how they involved people in decision making about their care wherever possible. We found that people’s needs were assessed and a care plan developed to ensure that these were met effectively.

We saw staff responding promptly to requests for support and engaging people in conversation. People told us that they were well looked after by staff. One person told us, "it is very good here, the staff are very hard working" and another person said, "they (staff) treat us very well."

People were supported to eat a balanced diet taking account of their individual dietary needs which were monitored. People told us they enjoyed the food provided by the home and one person said, "the food is very nice here" and another told us "the food is really nice, I like fish and chips and lasagne."

The home was clean and free of offensive odours and there were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection.

Effective systems were in place to ensure that the required records were maintained and kept up to date.

We spoke with the deputy manager, two other members of staff and three people who use the service. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because some of them had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

People told us that they felt listened to by staff and the care records showed that people were involved in planning their care. We observed staff interacting positively with people, talking to them in a respectful way and one person when talking about the staff said, "they are very polite and kind". People's cultural and spiritual needs were being considered and supported.

People's needs were appropriately assessed and a care plan developed so that staff knew what action to take to meet them. We observed staff caring for people in a sensitive manner. For example, staff chatted to people whilst supporting them with their lunch and supported them at an appropriate pace and did not rush them.

The home was clean, warm and well maintained. There were adequate numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and staff told us there were always enough staff on duty including a qualified nurse. The home has an effective system in place for managing complaints about the service. Complaints are responded to promptly and appropriately.

People said they liked living in the home and one person told us they had a key to their bedroom and could lock their room for privacy. Comments people made about the staff included, “they let me spend time in my bedroom if I want to or I can sit with other people”.

People said they were offered choices, for example with meal options and we saw the cook during the mealtime asking people if they were happy with the food.

People said staff were available to assist and support them. We observed staff took time to talk with people and asked them about their choices. One person said “the staff listen to me”. People confirmed they were able to see the GP when they needed to and other healthcare professionals, for example the chiropodist.

One person told us “I know the medication I am taking and staff explain why I need to take it”. People said they trusted the staff to give them the medication they needed.

People told us they could attend meetings held in the home. They said this was where their views were sought on various subjects, such as menu choices and hearing news about the home.