The inspection took place on 26 July 2017 and was unannounced. The home is a large detached property that blends in with its neighbours and is not identified as a care home. It is situated in a quiet residential area, but close to the amenities of New Brighton. We last inspected the service on 25 and 30 March 2015 when we found that the home was providing a good service in all areas. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people and 13 people were living there when we visited. The people accommodated were older people who required 24 hour support from staff. The home is part of the range of services provided by the London based Christian organisation Keychange Charity and had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission.

All of the people we spoke with said they felt safe at all times. They felt there were always enough staff on duty and that call bells were answered very promptly. New staff had been recruited safely and the staff team had completed training courses covering a wide range of subjects to enable them to meet people’s needs.

We looked all around the home and found that people had a comfortable, well maintained, clean and warm environment with a choice of lounges, dining room and a pleasant outside area to sit in. Records we looked at showed that regular health and safety checks were carried out and up to date certificates were in place for the maintenance of equipment and services.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

At the time of this inspection none of the people living at the home had a DoLS and the senior care worker told us that although some people had early dementia they were still able to make their own decisions. 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 supported this practice.

Everyone we spoke with was happy with the meals provided. The meals were presented well and people received the support they required with their meal. People we spoke with said how kind, considerate and polite all members of staff were.

The manager told us that the home was part of an initiative called ‘The Centre for Creativity and Innovation in Care’. The staff were encouraged to be spontaneous and creative in the ways that they provided care and support for people.

People's care and support needs were assessed and plans put in place for how their needs should be met. These were individualised and covered all aspects of a person's needs including physical, mental health and social needs.

The home’s complaints procedure was displayed in the entrance area and provided details about how, and to whom, complaints should be addressed. All of the people we spoke with said they had never had reason to complain but they would tell the staff if they did have a complaint.

People told us that the manager was approachable and all felt she would act if they made a complaint. They said that the home was “friendly, welcoming and so homely.” We saw that people had completed satisfaction surveys but they were not recent. Survey forms were available in the entrance hall and people could chose to fill them in anonymously. The quality monitoring systems used in the home were proportionate to the size and nature of the service.

We spoke to five people who used this service and four staff members. We reviewed three staff folders and three service users care plans. All care plans had a range of risk assessments, for example, falls, mobility and nutrition. We saw evidence that all care plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly.

All five service users we spoke to said staff were “very nice” and it was very “homely”. Two out of the four staff we spoke to said it was “like one big family”. We saw the activities co-ordinator engaging in activities with the service users. The activities co-ordinator showed a four week plan of activities which ranged from one-on-one time to shopping days out to cake decorating. We saw each service user had a diary of what they had done each day of the week which reflected their preferences.

We saw evidence of staff monitoring weights on a regular basis and were told they informed the GP of any weight loss.

We saw the provider had policies and procedures in place for safeguarding and emergency events. All staff were aware of where to locate them if need be. Staff were able to give us confident and correct examples of what they would do in an event of an emergency.

All the service users we spoke to said they had no concerns over the welfare of any of the other people living there. One told us she felt “safe” there.

We looked at records held by the provider; we looked at all policy and procedures for the home which had recently been updated. We looked at various maintenance records which were kept up to date. All records were kept confidentially in a locked office. All staff records were kept locked and the key held with the person in charge.

We spoke with four people who used the service. They all said they were happy living at the home, were well looked after and treated with dignity and respect. We observed staff treated people with respect and in a caring manner.

People who used the service said:

“It’s excellent here”, “I can’t fault anything”, “They treat me very well”, “The care is very good”, “They really do look after us well”, “They are very kind” and “I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else".

People told us they were aware of care plans and were involved in how they were cared for. They said they could make choices in daily living activities such as the time they got up or went to bed, clothes they wore, going out to the local shops and where and what to eat at mealtimes. One person told us she preferred to eat her meals in her room and this was enabled. We found care records reflected individual needs, these were assessed and care plans implemented appropriately.

People told us there was always plenty to eat and drink, staff responded well when they used the call bell and staff listened to the person and did their best to act upon their wishes. People told us there were plenty of activities to do if you wished to join in.

The inspection took place on 25 and 30 March 2015 and was unannounced on the first day. The home is a large detached property that blends in with its neighbours and is not identified as a care home. It is situated in a quiet residential area, but close to the amenities of New Brighton. We were told that it had been a care home for more than 50 years. On the ground floor there were five bedrooms, two lounges, a kitchen and dining room, an office and a bathroom. On the first floor there were eleven bedrooms, a bathroom and toilets. At the back of the house there was a patio garden and outbuildings.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people and 13 people were living there when we visited. The people accommodated were older people who required 24 hour support from staff. The home is part of the range of services provided by the London based organisation Keychange Charity and had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The staff we spoke with were able to tell us how they ensured that people were protected from abuse. All staff had received training about safeguarding and this was updated every year. There were enough qualified and experienced staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. The required checks had been carried out when new staff were recruited.

The staff we spoke with had good knowledge of the support needs of the people who lived at the home and had attended relevant training. The staff we met had a calm, cheerful and caring manner and they treated people with respect.

We found that the home was clean and well-maintained. Records we looked at showed that the required health and safety checks were carried out.

We found that medicines were managed safely and records confirmed that people always received the medication prescribed by their doctor.

People we spoke with confirmed that they had choices in all aspects of daily living. They were very happy with the standard of their meals.

People were registered with local GP practices and had visits from health practitioners as needed. The care plans we looked at were comprehensive and gave details of people’s care needs and information about the person’s life and their preferences.

People were encouraged, and supported if needed, to complete satisfaction surveys. A programme of quality audits was in place to monitor the quality of the service.