The inspection took place on 15 and 16 February 2017 and was unannounced. We brought forward our planned inspection because we received information of concern that staff were getting people up and dressed very early in the morning.

At our last inspection of the service in April 2015 we rated the service as good. A new provider HC- One Beamish Limited took over the provision of the service on 10 January 2017. This was our first inspection of the service since the new provider had acquired the home.

Hartford Court is a purpose built care home for older people, some of whom have a dementia related condition. Accommodation was organised over three floors. The Grace Suite for people living with dementia was situated on the third floor. Grace represents the philosophy of caring for people with a dementia related condition - Graciousness, Respect, Acceptance, Communication and Empowerment. There were 62 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. She had commenced employment in April 2016 and registered with CQC as a registered manager in November 2016. 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.

We found that staff were exceptionally caring. We observed kind, caring and thoughtful interactions between staff and people. Staff were highly motivated, committed and spoke with pride about the importance of ensuring people’s needs were held in the forefront of everything they did. Staff used inclusive methods of communication which were tailored to the needs of the people who lived at the home. The service had a strong, visible, person centred culture which was evident through the actions of the manager and staff.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home. There were no ongoing safeguarding concerns. A new electronic medicines system had been introduced. We found there was a safe and effective system in place for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

Checks were carried out to ensure that applicants were suitable to work with vulnerable people. This included obtaining written references and a Disclosure and Barring Service check [DBS]. There were sufficient staff deployed. Staff carried out their duties in a calm unhurried manner.

Staff told us, and records confirmed that training was completed regularly. There was an appraisal and supervision system in place. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when carrying out their roles.

People’s nutritional needs were met and they had access to a range of healthcare services. An activities programme was in place to help meet people's social needs. There was a complaints procedure in place. None of the people or relatives with whom we spoke during the inspection raised any concerns or complaints about the service.

Audits and checks were carried out to monitor the service. Our observations and findings on the days of our inspection visits confirmed that the provider had an effective quality monitoring system in place.

Staff told us that the service had been through a period of change following the appointment of the manager and the sale of the home to HC- One Beamish Limited. They were positive about the changes and about working at the home. We observed that this positivity was reflected in the care and support which staff provided.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We found people's needs were assessed and care was planned in line with their needs. One relative told us, "It is great here, they know what X needs and get them the help and support needed."

Care plans were regularly updated and contained clear information about individuals' care.

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. People told us, "The food is lovely."

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

At the time of this visit there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly to requests for assistance. One person told us, "The lasses are magic, lovely and helpful."

People were asked their views about the service provided and these were taken account of. People were aware of the complaints procedure. We saw the provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people told us they would confidently raise any concerns they had with the manager. People told us, "I can say if anything isn't right" and "The staff listen and help."

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. People told us they had confidence in the service, comments included, “I have nothing but good things to say about living here", "They (staff) are simply wonderful", "I have a lovely room with a great view" and "Everything is top notch."

People said they could receive medical and specialist attention when they needed it and were helped to fulfil their social needs within the home and community. People we spoke with said, "There is always something happening" and "There is plenty to do and we are always laughing."

People told us their home was clean, comfortable and warm. They said, "I have a beautiful room, which I love." They said staff were kind and caring and seemed to be well trained. People confirmed they were given the opportunity to comment on the service, change routine or raise complaints. They said their visitors were made to feel welcome and information sharing was good.

People told us they were happy with the care and attention they received at Hartford Court. They confirmed they were given choices in life and staff supported them to take some risks and be independent. People we spoke with said "I like it here", "I have a lovely room" and "it is a lovely place to live".

People said they received enough to eat and drink. They said "the food is really nice", "I enjoy my cooked breakfast", "there is always something tasty" and "you always have a choice".

People confirmed they could receive medical and specialist attention when they

needed it and were helped to fulfil their social needs within the home and community.

People we spoke with said "there plenty to do", "we sometimes don't have enough to do", "I enjoy getting out and about" and "I can join in or spend time in my room".

People told us their home was clean, comfortable and warm. They said "I have a lovely room with my things around me", "it is always so clean" and "there is always somewhere you can go to have a rest".

They said staff were kind and caring and seemed to be well trained. People confirmed they were given the opportunity to comment on the service, change routine or raise complaints. They said their visitors were made to feel welcome and information sharing was good.

Hartford Court provides personal accommodation and personal care and support for up to 68 older persons, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 64 people living at the home.

This inspection took place on the 29 and 30 April 2015 and was unannounced. We last inspected this service in August 2013 and found no breaches of legal requirements.

A registered manager was 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.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and all of the staff we spoke with recognised their own personal responsibility to report any instances of abuse that they may have witnessed or suspected. None of the staff we spoke with raised any safeguarding concerns.

Most of the risks that people were exposed to in their daily lives had been assessed. We found one case where the risks a person faced had not been fully assessed but we fed this back to the nominated individual and registered manager who rectified this. Environmental risks within the home had been assessed and measures put in place to protect the health and wellbeing of people, staff and visitors. Health and safety checks such as those related to fire and equipment were carried out regularly.

The ordering, storage, administration, disposal, recording and overall management of medicines was safe. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and staff had been vetted through the provider’s recruitment procedures to ensure they were both of suitable character, and mentally and physically fit, to work with vulnerable adults. Records showed that staff were trained in key areas such as moving and handling and the safe handling of medicines. In addition, staff had received training in areas specific to the needs of the people they supported, such as training in Parkinson’s disease awareness. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and the wider organisation and they received regular supervision and appraisal.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was appropriately applied and the best interests decision making process had been followed where necessary. Some records related to people’s capacity and any best interests decisions that may have been made, did not fully reflect who was involved in the decision making process and how the decision was reached. In addition, where people’s families held lasting power of attorney related to health and welfare decisions, copies of these documents were not obtained by the provider so they could satisfy themselves that they were acting within the law. Documents related to care decisions made about actions for staff to take should a person stop breathing needed to be reviewed and the nominated individual told us that this would be addressed.

People told us, and records confirmed that their general healthcare needs were met. General practitioners were called where there were concerns about people’s health and welfare as were other healthcare professionals such as occupational therapists. People told us the food they were served was of a high standard and that they could ask for anything they liked and it was accommodated. People’s nutritional needs were met and specialist advice was sought when needed.

Our observations confirmed people experienced care and treatment that protected and promoted their privacy and dignity. Staff displayed caring and compassionate attitudes towards people, and people spoke highly of the staff team. Staff were aware of people’s individual needs. People told us that they were supported to engage in activities within the home if they so wished, and the provider arranged excursions for them at various intervals.

Staff were very knowledgeable about people’s needs and care records overall were well maintained. Some records needed further detail so that information about people’s conditions and needs could be clearer. Staff provided person-centred care and on the upper floor the service was piloting a project linked to the Dementia Care Matters organisation, designed to enhance outcomes for people with cognitive impairments. The environment of this unit aided people with dementia care needs, by orientating them and there were tactile objects to occupy them.

The provider gathered feedback about the service from people, their relatives and staff via meetings and surveys. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and records showed that complaints were handled appropriately and documentation retained.

Quality assurance systems were in place and these were used to monitor care delivery and the overall operation of the service. For example, audits related to medicines management and health and safety within the building were carried out regularly. Checks on the building and equipment used in care delivery were undertaken in line with recommended time frames.

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager who acted on any concerns that they raised. The provider had a staff reward scheme in place where staff could enjoy discounts with large organisations and a bi-annual recognition awards ceremony was held, where staff could be nominated by colleagues, people and visitors for their attitude and good practice.

The provider had a clear vision for the service they delivered to people, and we saw they achieved this at Hartford Court.