We carried out an unannounced inspection on 20 September 2017. The home provides care and support for up to 12 people with mental health needs. There were 12 people being supported at the service on the day of the inspection.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

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 safe and the provider had effective systems in place to safeguard them. Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and keep people safe. People felt safe living at the service. There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to the staff on how risks to people could be minimised. People’s medicines were managed safely and administered in a timely manner by skilled and trained staff.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had supervision, support and effective training that enabled them to support people well.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported to have sufficient food and drinks and were supported in a caring and respectful manner. They were also assisted to access other health and social care services when required.

People’s needs had been assessed, and support plans took account of people’s individual needs, preferences, and choices. Independent living was key and people were supported to move into independent living facilities.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people or their representatives, and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.

The registered manager provided stable leadership and managerial oversight to staff who felt supported in their roles.

There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to drive continuous improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Kelvin Grove is a care home for up to 12 people with mental health needs. There were 12 people living in the home on the day of the inspection.

This inspection took place on 11 June 2015 and was unannounced.

The home 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.

Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and keep people safe. People felt safe living at the service.

Processes were in place to manage identifiable risks within the service and to ensure people did not have their freedom restricted unnecessarily.

The provider carried out recruitment checks on new staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the service.

Systems were in place to ensure people were supported to take their medicines safely and at the appropriate times.

Staff had been provided with the appropriate training to meet people’s assessed needs.

The service worked to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 key principles, which state that a person's capacity should always be assumed. Where a person cannot make decisions about their care and support, assessments of capacity had been undertaken.

People had enough to eat and drink and some people were supported by staff to prepare their own meals.

When required people were supported by staff to access healthcare facilities.

Positive and caring relationships had been developed between people and staff.

Staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people they were supporting.

People received care that was appropriate to their needs.

A complaints procedure had been developed to let people know how to raise concerns about the service if they needed to.

There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to drive continuous improvements.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. We saw that the provider ensured that people were cared for in an environment that was safe and well maintained. People's needs had been assessed, and risk assessments described how any identified risks to people were minimised. People were also protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained. The food was stored and prepared in a way that protected people against the risks associated with food poisoning. We saw that the medicines within the home were stored, administered and disposed of safely.

Is the service effective?

Detailed care plans were in place, and people told us their needs were being met. Staff received training to support people with various care needs. They also sought additional support from other health and social care professionals, to ensure positive care outcomes for people who use the service. The service provided people with adequate and nutritious food and drink that ensured they maintained good health.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with the staff, that they had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. People told us the staff were caring. One person said, "The staff are nice and they support me well."

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

We observed that staff responded promptly to people's needs. We saw that care plans had been updated when people's needs changed, and that referrals had been made to other health and social care professionals when required. The service took account of individual preferences, and people were supported to access a variety of activities of their choice.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post. However, they were not present during our inspection. A senior care worker, who also acted as the deputy manager, provided the information we required during the inspection. The manager also promptly sent the information we had requested from them. We saw that the provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service they provided. They regularly sought the views of people using the service and their representatives, and took account of these to improve the service.

We inspected Kelvin Grove Care Home on 17 June 2013 and we found the home to be relaxed and staff supportive of people's needs. At the time of our inspection, eleven people lived in the home, but a number of people were out of the home, attending the Day Resource Centre or engaging in other leisure activities.

We spoke with three people who told us they were happy with the care and support they received from the staff, with one adding that they "love it here". Two of the people we spoke with, told us they felt supported in their recovery journey and they were learning new skills to help them to live independent lives in the future.

We looked at processes in place to ensure that consent was being obtained from people prior to providing care and support. We looked at people's care records and saw a number of documents in place to show that people were giving consent to their care and support.

We found the provider had robust recruitment processes so that people were protected. We spoke with three staff who worked at the home, who told us they received a lot of support and guidance from the manager. They received appropriate training and were effectively supported in carrying out their job role. The staff records we reviewed also showed evidence of staff training and support.

We saw that a complaints process was in place and information on how to complain had been made available to people living in the home.

The people we spoke with said they were provided with useful information and felt involved in the discussions and decisions made about their care and support. They said they had received an assessment of their needs and regularly met staff to review their needs. They told us they felt safe and well supported by a friendly staff team who were always available for them and always knew what to do to assist them. People said they had no serious concerns about the service but felt that any issues or concerns they did raise were dealt with satisfactorily.

During our visit we found people's contribution to discussions and decision making about their care to be well documented. We saw that people received an assessment of their needs and these were updated in most cases we looked at. We saw that an adequate staff team was available to meet the needs of the people who use the service. Staff were completing a program of mandatory training and were knowledgeable in such things as protecting people from the risk of abuse.

We found that the service had quality monitoring systems in place and people had a variety of methods available for them to share their views and opinions about the service. We noted that where actions to prevent the recurrence of incidents or changes to improve the service were required these were completed.

One person said of her experience at Kelvin Grove: "The staff are really supportive and I've come a long way since I arrived here".