Hastings Lodge and Hastings Cottage are two homes which are registered to provide nursing care for up to 14 people. Hastings Lodge can support up to 11 people and Hastings Cottage can support three people. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people using the service. At the last inspection, in April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and ongoing professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager, and the deputy manager, were visible role models in the home. People and their relatives told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide consistently high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home.

This unannounced inspection took place on 21 April 2015. Hastings Lodge and Hastings Cottage is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 14 people, including older people and people with sensory, physical and learning disabilities.

There was a registered manager 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.

People were protected from receiving unsafe care. The recruitment procedures carried out at the home protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to the work in a caring environment. The staff were appropriately trained and had the knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs.

The staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and were knowledgeable of the safeguarding reporting procedures.

Safe systems were in place for obtaining, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.

Staff followed strict protocols when giving medicines to people prescribed to be given when required (PRN).

The managers and staff where knowledgeable about the codes of practice relating to the Mental Health Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People received a varied, healthy and nutritious diet and people at risk of not receiving adequate nutrition where encouraged by staff to follow a healthy diet. Relevant healthcare professionals were also involved in promoting good health and wellbeing.

People’s care plans reflected their needs and choices about how they preferred their care and support to be provided. The care staff were attentive and responded in a timely way to people’s requests. They understood their duties and carried them out effectively. Their manner was friendly and they encouraged people to retain as much independence as their capabilities allowed.

People were supported to engage in occupational and recreational activities, within the home and the community.

Systems were in place to continually monitor the quality of the service. The managers and staff listened to and acted upon what people said, including the views of people’s relatives or other representatives. Complaints were appropriately investigated and action was taken to make improvements to the service when this was found to be necessary.

Our inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector who visited the service unannounced on 11 September 2014. This was a routine inspection; however we also wanted to check that the provider had made improvements to the accessibility of the complaint procedure and record keeping. We had asked them to make the improvements following our inspection on 4 March 2014.

At the time of our inspection 10 people lived at Hastings Lodge and two people lived at Hastings Cottage. We spoke with four people who used the service who told us that they were happy living at the service. Because of the nature of their disabilities, they were not able to tell us in detail about their experiences. Our summary is based on the views of people who used the service, observations during the inspection, speaking with staff supporting people who used the service, the registered manager and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

During the inspection we sought answers the five key questions below:

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults, understood the different types of abuse and their responsibilities for reporting any concerns about the treatment of people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and plans of care developed according to their needs which helped staff to deliver appropriate care. From our observations and discussions with staff, we concluded that staff had a good knowledge of each person's care needs and preferences. This meant that staff were able to support people effectively.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. People who used the service were relaxed in the presence of staff and responded positively to them. People who used the service told us that they got on well with the staff and we heard staff talk about people in a caring and supportive manner.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that staff were available to support people who used the service and that they were responsive to signs that they may need assistance. Staff had responded to the changes in one person’s needs by updating the care plan and delivery of care following a hospital admission.

Is the service well-led?

We found that overall the service was well managed. The provider had taken action since our last inspection to make the improvements required in record keeping and accessibility of complaint procedures.

Discussion with staff and people who used the service confirmed that they had confidence in the manager.

We did find a record of an incident that had not involved any injury but should have been reported to the adult safeguarding team. This had not been done until identified by the inspector. We were satisfied that the manager was in the process of changing the recording of incidents to reduce the risk of issues being missed when monitoring.

We spoke with four people who used the service and one person's relative. The feedback we received from all the people we spoke with was positive and people told us that the staff were kind and treated them well. Three people were able to tell us that the staff offered the help and support that they needed and they had a bedroom that they liked. We saw that people were able to decorate their bedrooms with items and pictures of their own choosing.

We found that people were supported to maintain their independence and community involvement and received care and treatment that met their needs. We found that the homes were clean and free from unpleasant odours and staff were supported to obtain professional development which helped them in their roles. We found that the complaints procedure was not made accessible to people who used the service and records relating to the care and support people required were not always maintained and kept up to date.