We carried out an unannounced inspection of Favordale Home for Older People on 13 and 14 February 2018.

Favordale Home for Older People 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. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to a maximum of 45 people. The home is divided into three areas known as Wycoller View, Noyna View and Pendle View. Wycoller View and Noyna View provide care for older people with personal care needs and Pendle View provides care for older people living with dementia. At time of the inspection there were 43 people accommodated in the home.

At the last inspection, in September 2016 the service was rated as 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 risks 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.

People living in the home told us they felt safe and staff treated them well. People were supported by enough skilled staff. The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure people’s needs were met. Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the home. Safeguarding adults’ procedures were in place and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Potential risks to people's safety and welfare had been assessed and preventive measures had been put in place where required. People's medicines were managed appropriately.

Staff had the knowledge and skills required to meet people's individual needs effectively. They completed an induction programme when they started work and they were up to date with the provider's mandatory training. 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. There were appropriate arrangements in place to support people to have a varied and healthy diet. People had access to a GP and other health care professionals when they needed them. A visiting healthcare professional provided us with positive feedback about the service.

Staff treated people in a respectful and dignified manner and people's privacy was respected. People living in the home had been consulted about their care needs and had been involved in the support planning process as appropriate. We observed people were happy, comfortable and relaxed with staff. Support plans and risk assessments provided guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs and preferences. There were established arrangements in place to ensure the support plans were reviewed and updated regularly.

The service was responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences. People were given the opportunity to participate in social activities both inside and outside the home. People had access to a complaints procedure and were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and ensure people received safe and effective care. These included seeking and responding to feedback from people in relation to the standard of care.

People spoken with were very satisfied with the service provided, one person told us, “You really couldn’t get better, nothing is too much trouble and there is always someone to help you” and another person said, “I’m very happy here, I have no complaints at all”. People told us their rights to privacy, dignity and independence were upheld and respected. Relatives spoken with were also complimentary about the service.

People’s care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had individual care plans which were supported by a series of risk assessments. People told us they had discussed their needs with staff and had been involved in the reviews of their care.

People were provided with a comfortable and well maintained environment. All the communal areas and some of the bedrooms had recently been refurbished. Established arrangements were in place for ongoing maintenance and repairs to the building.

Staff were provided with appropriate training opportunities and received regular supervision. All staff spoken with told us they were well supported in their role and they enjoyed their work.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. People were asked their opinion of the service on an ongoing basis and were given feedback about the action taken in response to any suggestions.

People were satisfied with the service provided, one person told us, “I am very happy here, I have no worries or concerns at all” and another person said, “They do everything they can to help you, the staff are lovely”. People told us their rights to privacy, dignity and independence were upheld and respected.

People’s care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had detailed individual care plans which were supported by a series of risk assessments. We saw evidence that people had discussed their care plans with staff and they had signed their plans wherever possible to indicate their participation and agreement.

We found staff had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults and had access to appropriate policies and procedures.

We noted suitable arrangements were in place to handle and manage medication. All records looked at were complete and up to date and checks were carried out on a weekly basis to ensure medication was handled correctly and safely.

We observed there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People made complimentary comments about the staff team and staff were observed to have a respectful and sensitive approach to meeting people’s needs.

We found there were established systems to monitor the quality and operation of the service. We saw evidence to demonstrate that people were regularly consulted about their opinion of the service and their comments were used to shape future developments in the home.

We carried out an inspection of Favordale Home for Older People on 28 and 29 September 2015. The first day was unannounced. We last inspected the home on 17 June 2013 and found the service was meeting the regulations that were applicable at that time.

Favordale Home for Older People is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 44 older people. The home is located close to Colne town centre and is set in its own grounds with two enclosed gardens. Accommodation is provided in 44 single rooms, 18 of which have an ensuite facility. The home is split into three units known as Wycolller View, Noyna View and Pendle View. Pendle View provided care for people living with a dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 44 people living in the home.

The service was managed by a registered manager. 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.

During this inspection we found the service was meeting the current regulations.

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and managed safely. There was guidance for staff on how to manage people’s care needs. Staff understood the signs of potential abuse and what action they needed to take if it was suspected. Premises and equipment were managed safely and we noted safety checks were carried out on a regular basis. There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and the service followed safe recruitment practices. People’s medicines were managed safely and were administered by trained staff.

Staff were trained in all essential areas and participated in a comprehensive induction programme. Staff were well supported by the management team and received regular supervision and an annual appraisal.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken and recorded in people’s files. This ensured decisions were taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the associated Code of Practice.

People had access to healthcare professionals. A choice of food and drink was available that reflected their nutritional needs, and took into account their personal lifestyle preferences or health care needs.

People and staff had developed positive, caring relationships. People felt they were well looked after by kind, friendly staff who understood and knew them well. People’s preferences and choices were known and respected by staff and they were encouraged to express their views and be involved in all aspects of their care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

All people had a detailed care plan which covered their needs and any personal preferences. We saw the plans had been reviewed and updated at regular intervals. This meant staff had up to date information about people’s needs and wishes. People had opportunities to participate in a variety of activities and we observed staff actively interacting with people throughout our visit. All people spoken with told us the staff were caring and kind.

All people, their relatives and staff spoken with had confidence in the registered manager and felt the home had clear leadership. We found there were effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people living in the home and their relatives. Arrangements were in place for dealing and responding to any complaints.