We inspected the service on 1 May 2018. Our inspection was unannounced. We returned on 2 May 2018 and this was announced.

Huntingdon Court is a residential care home that provides care and support for up to 43 older people. At the time of our inspection 37 people were using the service and many were living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 felt safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from avoidable harm. The provider had followed safe recruitment practices. Staff were not always deployed in the most effective ways to provide people with the support they needed particularly during the busy morning period.

Where risks were identified for people while they were receiving support these had been assessed and control measures put in place. People received their medicines in line with their prescription.

Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People had enough to eat and drink to maintain good health and nutrition. People were supported to access health professionals when required.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported them to be as independent as possible.

People had care plans in place that focused on them as individuals. This enabled staff to provide consistent care in line with people's personal preferences.

Activities were limited and people did not feel they received enough stimulation.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. Staff felt supported by the registered manager to meet the standard expected of them. The registered manager was approachable and accessible to staff and people.

The provider had sought feedback from people and their relatives about the service they received. They had taken action based on this feedback.

The registered manager had implemented systems to monitor the quality of the service.

We inspected the service on 9 May 2016. Our inspection was unannounced. We returned on 10 May 2016 and this was announced.

Huntingdon Court is a residential Home for older people, at the time of the inspection 40 people were using the service.

It is a requirement that the service has 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. The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection.

People told us they felt safe. Staff were able to explain how they kept people safe from abuse, and knew what external assistance there was to follow up and report suspected abuse. Staff were trained and understood how to look after people and protect them from harm and abuse. Staff were aware of whistleblowing.

Staff were recruited following the provider’s recruitment procedures that ensured staff were suitable to work at the home. We observed there to be sufficient staff available to meet people’s basic personal care needs and were deployed effectively.

Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely and staff were trained to provide the medicines people required.

Staff received an induction and on-going training that supported them in their job role. Staff had access to people’s care records and were understood how to meet people’s needs and what was important to them.

People had been asked for their consent to care and treatment and their wishes and decisions respected. The provider adhered to the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards 2008.

People's dietary needs were met. People were provided with a choice of meals. The catering staff were provided with up to date information about people’s dietary needs. People had access to regular snacks and drinks throughout the day.

People had access to appropriate medical advice and support from health care professionals. Care plans were up to date and included the changes to peoples care and treatment.

People felt staff were kind and caring, and their privacy and dignity was respected in the delivery of care and their choice of lifestyle. People had access to a variety od activities during the week.

People knew how to make a complaint and were given information about the service. Feedback about the quality of the service offered had been sought. Although people were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans this was not always recorded.

There was a registered manager in place who understood the requirements of their role. They had worked with the provider and staff team to regularly assess the quality of the service.

We spoke with five people who used the service, four visitors to the service and nine members of staff. We also reviewed five care records and five staff files.

During our visit we observed staff giving care and support. We saw evidence of good interactions between staff and the people who used the service. For example, we saw evidence of choices being given to people and verbal consent gained before carrying out care.

We also spoke with a number of people who used the service and asked them their views in relation to the care they received. All spoke with high regard for the quality of care and kindness displayed by the staff. One person told us: “My key worker knows me well and my care is very good.”

We spoke with a number of staff and asked them their views on whether there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. The staff told us they felt there had been a significant improvement in the numbers of staff. All the staff explained that staffing had improved since the recruitment of a new manager six weeks previously.

We asked the staff we spoke with to describe to us how supported they felt. Their responses indicated they were very well supported. One member of staff told us: “Working here is brilliant. The new manager is very approachable and has made significant improvements.”

We spoke with four people using the service and two relatives visiting their family members. We also spoke to four members of staff.

One person told us “the staff do all what they can; I don’t envy them.” This person told us they thought Huntingdon Court was understaffed. Another person told us “the staff look after me well.” A relative told us Huntingdon Court “is brilliant. They always keep us informed of what is happening with [their family member] and always sort out any problems.”

We found that care and support was not always delivered in a way that met people’s needs and ensured their safety and welfare. We found inconsistencies in the way people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The care records did provide sufficient information about the care provided to meet people’s needs. Important information to be used in the event of an emergency was not available in some files. We found there was a lack of meaningful activities and social stimulation available for people using the service.

On the day of our inspection, we found there were an insufficient number of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of people using the service. There was no dedicated manager, administrator or activities co-ordinator available.

We spoke with four people using the service and a visiting healthcare professional. We also spoke to eight members of staff.

We found the provider had policies and procedures in place relating to people who did not have the capacity to consent. However, it was not clear if these had been followed.

We found people experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We found people’s care needs had been assessed. Care and support was delivered in a way that met people’s needs and ensured their safety and welfare. People were protected from the risk of abuse and staff knew how to raise any concerns.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We found the provider had robust systems in place relating to the management of medicines.

We found that there were enough appropriately trained, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We saw that staff had received relevant training for their job. However, we found the provider did not have formal systems in place to regularly provide supervision and appraisal to staff.

We found systems were in place to regularly obtain people's views about the care and service they receive. We found the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.