This inspection was carried out on 8 and 9 November 2016. The first day was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming.

The last inspection of this home was carried out on 29 July 2014. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Hunters Lodge can accommodate up to 30 people who require personal care. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. There were 27 people living there when we visited.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt well cared for in the home. People we spoke with felt staff had the right skills to care for people. One person commented, “Staff seem to know what they’re doing and they’re very good.” A relative told us, “Staff are committed, compassionate and competent.” Staff told us they had lots of training opportunities.

There were enough staff on duty to support the people who lived there. Every morning staff were arranged into teams so they knew exactly who to support and when. The registered manager carried out thorough checks to make sure only suitable staff were employed.

People’s right to make their own decisions was respected and their consent was sought before care was provided. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision.

People were complimentary about the quality of the food. Their comments included, “It’s always very nice”, “the cooks like to feed us up” and “it’s a very nice place to have meals”. Relatives also said people were supported to eat and drink enough. One relative commented, “They always make sure people are hydrated – there’s lots of drinks and ice-cream.”

People and relatives told us the home arranged appropriate health care input when required, and acted quickly if people were poorly. One relative told us, “They’ve completely turned my [family member’s] health around.”

People and relatives had many positive comments to make about the caring and compassionate nature of the staff. People described staff as “very kind” and "very friendly”. Staff were polite, respectful, friendly and sensitive when assisting people.

Relatives described staff as “very caring” and “very patient”. One relative said, “The staff are lovely people. They get down and look at people when they’re talking. They use gentle touch to help people feel reassured.”

During this inspection we found a small number of people’s care records were out of date which could lead to inconsistent care, so these were being updated.

Relatives felt staff knew each person well and everyone was treated as an individual. One relative commented, “They can get up when they want, have breakfast in bed if they want or have a late brunch. The staff do what people want them to do and they do it in a gentle manner and supportive way.”

People told us there was a good range of activities and entertainment to take part in if they wanted. One person said there was always “plenty to do”.

People and their relatives were asked for their views about the home at meetings and in surveys and these were used to improve the service. Each person had received written information about how to make a complaint when they moved to the home.

People, relatives and staff said the registered manager was “very approachable” and took time to listen to their views and suggestions. There was an open, family-style culture in the home and staff felt valued by the provider.

Hunters Lodge Care Home provided support and accommodation to a maximum of 30 people. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people living at the home.

As part of the inspection we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool to help us see what people's experiences were. The SOFI tool allowed us to spend time watching what was going on in the service and helped us to record how people spent their time and whether they had positive experiences.

During our visit we spoke with six people who lived at the home. We spoke with three relatives/visitors, the registered manager, two senior carers and three members of staff. We also spoke with a community nurse who was visiting the service.

We used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

None of the people we spoke with had any concerns about the support they received.

We saw care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. All of the care plans we looked at had risk assessments in place to help minimise any risk that had been identified.

The home had a clear policy on the protection of vulnerable adults and also had a copy of the local authority adult protection policy.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the service effective?

Each person had a plan of care and support. We saw that support plans explained what the person could do for themselves and what support they needed from staff. Staff told us the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required.

We observed staff supporting people and care staff we spoke with were aware of people's needs and how people wanted care to be delivered. We saw staff offered advice and support but they also enabled people to make their own choices and decisions.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff speaking with people appropriately and they used people’s preferred form of address; We saw people and staff got on well together.

We observed that people were happy with the support they received. A relative of one person we spoke with was very happy with the care and support their relative received. They told us that the staff were caring and provided the help, care and support their relative needed.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people had regular reviews of the care and support they received. We saw review notes showed alterations had been made to people’s plans of care as their needs had changed.

We saw that people were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. Staff told us that they encouraged and supported people to participate in activities to promote and maintain their well-being.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff were asked for their views about how the home met people’s needs and any concerns or ways to improve the service were acted on.

Is the service well led?

The Lodge had a policy and procedure in place for quality assurance and the provider organisation also employed a head of care who visited the service on a regular basis.

The manager told us they carried out a range of weekly and monthly audits to ensure that Hunters Lodge was maintaining a good standard of care and support. The head of care checked that these audits were undertaken. A report was compiled after each visit and a copy of these reports were kept on the computer system at the home.

A relative we spoke with told us that they had regular contact with the home and said they could speak to the manager or staff at any time. They told us they were kept informed about any issues which affected their relatives.

Staff meetings took place six times per year and minutes of these meetings were kept. Staff we spoke with confirmed this and said the staff meetings enabled them to discuss issues openly with the manager and the rest of the staff team.

The manager told us that all staff received regular one to one supervision where staff performance issues were discussed and additional staff training was identified. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.

On the day we inspected there were 27 people living at the home, some of whom had memory impairment. During our inspection we spoke with three staff, the manager and four people who use the service, a visiting professional and three visitors.

We spent time in their company in the lounge/dining area observing the support people received before and during their meal. We saw that the staff were friendly and respectful and they were quick to respond if anyone appeared unhappy or distressed.

We observed the majority of people receiving assistance and support in a timely and respectful manner. We saw that one person got up and left the room and their meal for 20 minutes before staff acted. The person was then assisted by three different staff, only one of whom asked if the person wanted something else to eat. They were then given something else but staff did not check to see how much they had eaten.

Comments from staff included "We are a good team, we work together well". "We have everything we need to be able to care for people living here at Hunters Lodge". Visitors and health professionals were positive in their comments about the care and support offered to people at the home.

We requested information from the provider on how people who use the service and their friends and relatives are enabled to make a complaint or raise concerns about the care and service provided at Hunters Lodge. We reviewed the information to determine whether the provider ensured that people could complain or share their concerns about the service and what was done with that information.

The registered manager sent us a copy of the policy and other information such as how they monitor issues and complaints and action they have taken as a result.

We carried out a responsive inspection in October 2011 in response to concerns that we had received about the service. We identified concerns with Outcome 4 care and welfare, Outcome 7 safeguarding, Outcome 8 cleanliness and infection control and Outcome 14 supporting staff. The concerns were in relation to care planning, risk assessments, safeguarding of patients and staff training. We made compliance actions asking the provider to take action in order that we were reassured that patients were in receipt of safe and adequate care with regard to outcome 4, 7, 8 and 14.

We carried out an inspection on 2 April 2012 to review the progress the provider had made in taking action to be compliant in the areas where we had assessed them as non complaint.

During our visit we spoke with four people who live at the home, five staff and the manager. People told us that they were happy at the home; it was easy for them to move about the home if they were able and access facilities such as the lounges and garden. They said they were able to give their opinion, for example about the food and they felt they were respected and heard.

Staff we met on the day told us about the training they had attended since our last visit and of the changes that had taken place.

We carried out a responsive inspection in response to concerns that we received about the service.

During our visit we spoke with five people who live at the home, five staff and the manager. People who were able told us that they liked the staff. One person told us they liked their room and others were unable to comment about the home.

Staff we met on the day told us they received training and are supported by the management of the home and they can speak with senior staff about any concerns they have about the running of the home.