The inspection took place on 19 December 2018 and was unannounced. The last inspection of this service was on 16 and 17 May 2016 and we found the service to be good in all areas. The service is run by Anchor Hanover Group.

Israel Sieff Court is a care home located in the Crumpsall area of Manchester. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to 35 people, some of whom are living with dementia. On the day of inspection, 35 people were living at the home.

The home is divided into three floors. There is access to each floor via a passenger lift and stairwells.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. At this inspection we found the service remained good overall.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager. The registered manager was not available on the day of our inspection and the inspection was facilitated by the deputy manager.

People felt safe living at Israel Sieff Court. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe and felt confident they could report any concerns they had to the registered or deputy manager and they would act upon the concern.

Staff members were recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable groups. Staff members received an induction to the service and were given suitable training to allow them to undertake their job role effectively.

The safety of the home was well managed with regular internal and external checks of equipment. A fire risk assessment was in place and personal evacuation plans to assist people to leave the building in an emergency, safely.

Medicines were safely managed and monitored. Staff received regular training and competency checks of medicines administration to ensure they were following best practice.

Accidents and incidents were monitored for patterns and themes. Any learning from accidents and incidents were shared for learning.

People received a full assessment of their needs prior to moving into the service. This fed into care plans and risk assessments to enable people to be supported in a person centred and safe way.

The service worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act, however, we made a recommendation that any conditions made in from authorisations in connection to deprivations of liberty safeguards were fed into care plans.

People were supported to eat and drink. We noted records for eating and drinking were being completed some hours afterwards. Changes to ensure records were completed in real time were actioned on the day of inspection. People were complimentary of the food and told us they had lots of choice. Meals looked appealing people could choose what they wished to eat and drink.

People had their health care needs met by various health care professionals. We saw people could see a GP when they needed to, and health conditions were monitored.

People felt cared for and told us staff were kind. Our observations were that staff knew people living at Israel Sieff Court well and there were friendly interactions between people and staff. A relative told us that they couldn’t find anywhere better.

Care plans captured peoples support needs and we saw people and their families had been able to contr

This inspection took place on the 16 and 17 May 2016 and was unannounced.

Israel Sieff Court is a purpose built care home that provides residential care for up to 35 people. All the rooms at Israel Sieff Court are single with an en-suite toilet and sink facilities. The home is split over three floors with lift access. The home is situated in the Crumpsall area of Manchester and has a small car park. It is close to local shops and amenities. The home is owned and managed by Anchor Trust which is a national charity providing social housing, care homes and nursing care homes across England.

The service had 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.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Israel Sieff Court. All the relatives felt their loved ones were safe living there. Staff knew how to keep people safe and were aware of how and to whom they could report any safeguarding concerns.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support. The ability of people to make decisions was always assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. Decisions were always taken in the best interests of people when necessary and applications were made for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards appropriately.

Risk assessments were up to date. Care plans were written with the person or their families. People had been supported to be involved in identifying their support needs. Pre-assessments included people’s likes and preferences and staff knew the people well.

People were well cared for and there were enough staff to support them effectively. The staff were knowledgeable about the needs of the people and had received appropriate training in order for them to meet people’s needs. The recruitment process was robust and all required checks were in place prior to staff commencing work. People living at Israel Sieff Court were involved in the recruitment process which showed the service was taking their view into consideration.

Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely and in line with the required guidelines. There were appropriate guidance and protocols and guidance for staff when people needed ‘as required’ medicine.

Staff were observed as being kind and caring, and treated people with dignity and respect. There was an open, trusting relationship between the people and staff.

We saw people were fully supported to attend activities within the home; those who were cared for in their bed who were unable to attend, were offered one to one support from the activities coordinator. We saw nearly everyone living at Israel Sieff chose to join in the activities on offer and there was a full activities plan with lots of different activities to choose from. People who were able to, made choices about how they spent their time and where they went each day.

We saw people and their relatives had been asked for feedback about the service they received. There was a record of what actions had been taken to address any identified concerns. Staff worked well as a team; we saw them communicating with each other in a respectful and calm manner. There was an open and transparent culture which was promoted amongst the staff team.

Everyone knew who the registered manager was and felt the service was well-led. All staff said they felt supported and felt they could raise any concerns with the registered manager and they would be acted upon.

We viewed the policies and procedures and saw they were being followed. Quality assurance checks were being completed and when incidents had occurred action had been taken.

During our last inspection in August 2013 we looked at how the provider was meeting the regulations relating to workers. Whilst the provider had good recruitment procedures, we saw that the provider had not collected all necessary information about some people before employing them. Following that inspection the provider submitted an action plan detailing what steps they had taken to address the issues raised.

We conducted this follow up inspection to establish that the regulations relating to workers were being met and to ensure that the action taken by the provider had been sustained. We looked at the personnel files of four staff during this visit. These reflected that the provider had systems in place to ensure that they collected all the required information about people before employing them.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, including observing care and speaking to those people who could give their views on the home. We spoke with four people who lived in the home about their care and treatment. We also spoke with two relatives of people who lived at the home. All the people we spoke with were positive about the care they received. One person who used the service told us: "We're well looked after". Another said of staff that work in the home: "very professional". One relative stated that: "It was a very good decision to place [my relative] here....They're well looked after".

We found that the people were very well cared for. We found that the home was clean and measures were in place to keep infections under control. Whilst the provider had good recruitment procedures, we saw that the provider had not collected all necessary information about people before employing them. We found that the home had checks to measure the quality of the service. We found that care recording had improved since our last visit and records were now maintained properly.

We talked with three people using the service, three care staff working in the home including the registered manager and the family members of one person using the service. People we talked with said they enjoyed living at Israel Sieff. We were told:

“It’s very nice here, they clean the place very well.”

“Staff come and ask you how you are and they tend to do everything with kindliness. Those are the things that make life worth living.”

We saw that people were provided with physical, emotional, and social support to meet their needs.

We were told: “They sort out my medication and I’ve had a doctor when I needed one.”

I love it here, I really do! We do all sorts but I prefer watching television though.”

“If I need a walk the nurse will take me out in a wheelchair.”

We saw there were sufficient staff on duty that were skilled at meeting people’s needs and liked by the people who used the service. A member of staff told us:

“I can honestly say that we’ve never run short staffed. I don’t think the manager would allow it.”

We found that Israel Sieff met the individual needs of people and promoted their physical and social wellbeing and development. We saw that people using the service were supported to achieve a good lifestyle and so their sense of self worth was promoted. We also found however some improvement was needed in how well the service records were made about care and support provided.

People who use this service were very positive about all aspects of the care they received at the home. They told us that they felt well looked after. They told us that there was a variety of activities available at the home. Comments included: "I'm very happy here." "It's just what I wanted." "I find it excellent." "It's great here. There's lots to do. I'm always busy." "Everybody does their best for you."