Gladstone House is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 younger adults with mental health conditions. There were nine people living at service on the day we inspected. The building is a converted hotel with a more recent extension. The property has no garden and car parking is on the road outside the service. It is situated close to public gardens.

At the last inspection this service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager at this service who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission since June 2011 .

We found that the service was safe. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people who used the service and they were trained in subjects which were reflective of their role and people's needs. They had been trained in safeguarding adults and were aware of reporting procedures.

Risks to people's health and safety had been identified and recorded. Premises safety was maintained through regular checks of services and equipment.

Medicines were managed safely and people who used the service had access to healthcare professionals when needed.

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

People's nutritional needs were met.

People chose what activities they wished to take part in and led their lives as they chose.

Staff were kind and caring and showed respect to people.

Care plans were person centred and were reviewed regularly.

If people had any concerns or complaints there was a policy displayed telling them what action to take. No complaints had been made.

There was a clear management structure within the service. The organisational values reflected the way people were supported.

There was a quality monitoring system in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection was carried out on 13 November 2014 and was unannounced. At our last visit to Gladstone House on 4 July 2013 we did not ask for any improvements to be made.

Gladstone House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12  adults with mental health conditions. There were nine people living at service on the day we inspected. The building is a converted hotel with a more recent extension. The property had no garden or car parking space but was situated close to public gardens.

There was a registered manager at this service who had been registered since June 2011 with the Care Quality Commission. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Gladstone House is a small family run service which has a friendly and relaxed atmosphere.

We found that the service was safe. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people who used the service and they were trained in mandatory subjects as well as specific subjects such as mental health.

People were protected through the use of the Court of Protection when there were any identified risks. The court of protection is able to authorise a named person to make decisions on behalf of someone who is unable to make the decision for themselves.

Medicines were managed safely and people who used the service had access to healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff were kind and caring towards people who used the service and showed respect when speaking with them. People who used the service were encouraged to maintain links with family and friends.

There was a clear management structure within the service and staff understood the culture and values associated with this service

We spoke with several people who lived at Gladstone House. They told us that they were involved in the planning of and decisions made about the support they required. They told us that staff supported them to make their own decisions about any care, treatment and social activities they were involved in.

Care plans included information about mental and where necessary physical health. The care plan format had been improved recently with information being provided in a clear and concise way. This enabled staff to assist the individual in a personal way.

We saw that the environment was suitable for the people who lived there. People were able to lock their own room when they left it and this gave them a sense of safety.

We saw that employment checks were carried out on the staff before they started working at Gladstone House. This meant that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The manager carried out several audits of records kept, the environment and how people were. This meant that people received a service that met their needs.

We spoke with seven people who used the service and they told us they could follow their own routines during the day. One person told us that they could get up and go to their room when they wanted to. People told us they attended a regular meeting to discuss their lives at the home. We saw records of these meetings. People who used the service told us that the staff were "All nice". They told us that the staff let them do what they wanted to during the day.

Staff kept daily records for each person. These records contained detailed information about incidents people who used the service had been involved in. These incidents were not reflected in the reviews of the care plans. The daily notes also contained judgements rather than factual information.

People who used the service told us they helped with the domestic activities in the home. One person helped wash up, another set the tables and another took round the afternoon drinks. People told us that they took turns to help with these activities.

Staff told us they had mandatory training every year. Staff records also contained records of national vocational training (NVQ) that they had completed. There was no evidence that staff had received training about mental health issues other than challenging behaviour.

Staff told us that they had time to spend with people who used the service but this was not evidenced during the inspection. We saw that staff were busy with household tasks.

At this review we did not consult with anyone who used this service. Instead we spoke with the provider.