About the service: Eastwood Promoting Independence Centre is a residential care home that provides respite, short break and assessments for up to 25 older people and people living with dementia. On the date of this inspection there were 20 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service: During our inspection we found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to staffing.

A review of the provider’s training matrix identified some staff were not up-to-date with essential mandatory training. Gaps were also identified in staff supervision records.

People and their relatives told us the care they received from staff was good. They told us staff knew and fully understood their needs. People living at the service were usually only there for a period of six weeks. During this time, people’s needs were either assessed to allow them to undergo rehabilitation with the aim of returning to their own home, or people were assessed to determine what would best meet their longer-term needs.

People told us they felt safe. The provider had safeguarding policies in place and records confirmed this process was followed. People told us there were enough staff to look after them. Recruitment of staff remained good. Care plans included individual risk assessments, which were regularly reviewed to keep people safe. Medicines continue to be managed safely. Regular premises safety checks were carried out.

The provider worked closely with various healthcare professionals, some of whom were based on site. People also had access to healthcare services such as GPs, dieticians and dentists.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and people told us they enjoyed their meals. The environment had been designed to support and encourage people to achieve a greater level of independence.

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

People and their relatives were involved in the creation of care plans. Care plans were reviewed on a weekly basis and where necessary changes were made.

People were encouraged to provide feedback of their experience of the service. Regular meetings were held with people who used the service to discuss ideas for improving the home. People were encouraged to participate in a range of activities.

People, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals spoke in positive terms about the registered manager. Staff told us that the registered manager was both supportive and approachable.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published September 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the previous inspection .

Follow up. We have asked the provider to send us an action plan telling us what steps they will take to make the improvements needed. We will return to re-inspect this service within the published timeframe for services rated requires improvement.

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 27 May and 3 June 2016.

We last inspected Eastwood Promoting Independence Centre in March 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at the time.

Eastwood Promoting Independence Centre is a service that provides nursing and personal care for up to 26 older people, some whom may live with dementia. The service provides short stay, assessment, intermediate care and rehabilitation to help promote people’s independence to help them return to their own home. Nursing care is now provided at the service as a multi-disciplinary team of health and social care professionals provide care and treatment to people.

A registered manager was in place. 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 said they felt safe. Staffing levels were working and were appropriate for the service as it was currently operating. However, we considered that this would need to be kept under review as occupancy levels increased in order to ensure the ethos of the service was supported and all people received timely and individual care. Care was provided with kindness and people's privacy and dignity were respected.

All people spoke positively of the service they received. They told us staff were kind and caring. People welcomed the opportunity to stay at the service and receive some rehabilitation in order for them to regain their independence and in most cases return home.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. There were processes in place to ensure that any issues or concerns were responded to appropriately.

Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, where decisions were made on behalf of people who were unable to make decisions themselves. Other training was provided to help ensure people's needs were met although not all training for safe working practices was up to date. Staff were supervised and supported.

The environment was mostly well-maintained. We considered improvements were required to communication to ensure staff were kept up to date about people’s well-being.

People received their medicines in a safe and timely way. People were supported by health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care and support they needed.

Menus were varied and a choice was offered at each mealtime. Staff supported people who required help to eat and drink and special diets were catered for. There were activities and entertainment available for people.

A complaints procedure was available. People told us they would feel confident to speak to staff about any concerns if they needed to. People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with people and/ or family members and their views were used to improve the service. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

Staff and people who used the service said the registered manager was supportive and approachable. Tere were effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people receiving care.

The reason for this visit was to check if improvements had been made in the area of record keeping following a previous inspection.

We saw that records were up to date and fit for purpose. Records were accurate and stored securely.

People were given information they needed to make an informed decision about their care and were asked to provide their consent to such care.

We saw people were cared for effectively and care was planned in a way that ensured the safety of people.

There was sufficient suitably qualified and experienced staff on duty to ensure the safety and welfare of people who used the service. We saw the premises were safe and suitable.

The provider had an effective system in place to record and monitor complaints. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.

We saw records were not always accurate and appropriately maintained.

People who used the service were positive about the care and support provided. Comments included “I’m very pleased with the care I receive. I don’t have to ask for anything they just do it” and “I have no problem with the carers. I trust them

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We observed care, spoke to people who use the service, spoke to visiting professionals and staff. We also reviewed care records for people using the service.

Some people who used the service told us they were happy at the home and with the care provided. Comments included “I’m very satisfied with it” and “I get what I want.”

One staff member described working at the home "It's quite pleasant to work here. I really like my job."