This inspection was carried out on 4 September 2017. The inspection visit was unannounced.

Kingfisher Court Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people and people with dementia and physical disabilities. On the day of our inspection there were 39 people using the service.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 26 February 2015, the service was rated Good in all domains.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, however at times staff were rushed and their interactions with people were task focused.

People could be assured that they would receive their medicines as prescribed by their doctor. People’s health needs were met and where necessary they had access to health professionals.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. Risks were assessed and measures put in place to prevent avoidable harm. Staff understood how to raise concerns about people’s safety if they needed to. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.

People were supported by staff who had received training and support to meet their needs. Staff felt supported and their competency in their role was checked.

Our observation of the lunch time service was that it was chaotic at times and that people sat for a long time in the dining room before their meal was served. Records did not reflect that drinks or snacks were served over a 24 hour period. Where people had dietary requirements, these were met and staff understood how to provide these.

People had consented to the care they received. The service supported people in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. People’s mental capacity to consent to their care had been assessed where there was a reasonable belief that they may not be able to make a specific decision.

Staff at all levels treated people with kindness and compassion. People were supported to maintain their independence. However at times people’s dignity was not protected.

The care needs of people had been assessed and were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to be met. Staff had a clear understanding of their role and how to support people who used the service.

People had access to activities so that they could follow their interests and remain active if they wanted to.

The provider had sought feedback from people and their relatives and staff about the service. People and staff felt that the deputy manager was approachable and action would be taken to address any concerns they may have.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided and to drive improvement. These had not always been effective in identifying when records relating to people’s fluid intake had not been accurately maintained. Where systems had identified areas of concern, action had been taken to address these in a timely manner.

The provider was aware of their responsibility to report events that occurred within the service to CQC and external agencies. There was not a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. It is a requirement of the provider’s registration that there is registered manager in post.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 26 February 2015. Kingfisher Court Care Centre provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 40 people. On the day of our inspection 37 people were using the service.

We last inspected Kingfisher court Care Centre on 7 January 2014. At that time it was not meeting one of the essential standards. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements in the areas of meeting people’s care and welfare needs. We received an action plan dated 3 February 2014 in which the provider told us about the actions they would take to meet the relevant legal requirements. During this inspection we found that the provider was meeting these legal requirements.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 who used the service. Staff had received safeguarding training. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding matters and the action they would take to report any concerns they found.

Risks were identified and assessed. Care had been planned for each individual to ensure the level of any risks were kept to a minimum.

Appropriate equipment was in place and each person had an emergency evacuation plan on their care file.

People and their relatives felt there was sufficient staff who were trained to support people and where relevant necessary procedures were followed to ensure safe care practices were always used.

People received their medicines safely and correctly. Systems were in place to ensure staff responsible for administering medicines did so without interruptions.

People were cared for and supported by knowledgeable staff. Staff assessed people’s needs to ensure they received effective care.

Staff received a robust induction, supervision, a yearly appraisal and attended relevant training courses to develop their skills and knowledge.

People gave their permission for care and treatment they received. The provider followed appropriate guidelines for the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which are a requirement of the MCA.

People received positive experiences at lunch time and were able to make their own choices. They received sufficient to eat and drink and where relevant food preferences were adhered to.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services to support their health needs.

People were cared for by caring staff who treated them with dignity and respect. Staff interacted well with people and they were encouraged to develop caring relationships with the people they cared for.

People’s choices and preferences were accommodated.

People were happy with the way the home was managed. They were confident to raise any concerns or complaints with the appropriate staff member. The culture of the service was open and transparent and people could share their views and experiences.

We spoke with five people about their experiences of living at Kingfisher Court. All of them told us they were very happy and settled and staff looked after them well. One person said, “I am happy here, it is marvellous. The staff help me when needed. I can make my own choices and decisions.” Another person said, “I am settled, my family can visit at any time. The staff are very good and always on hand if needed.”

We saw care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We found people were not always receiving appropriate support with maintaining their skin integrity.

We spoke with four people using the service about the cleanliness of the home. They all told us that they thought the home was clean and tidy. One person said, “It is very nice, staff clean my room and do my laundry.” Another person said, it’s a lovely environment, it’s kept clean and tidy.”

During our tour of the home we found it was clean and tidy and people’s rooms were personalised. We found the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.

We saw staff were being offered training and supervision to develop their knowledge and skills in relation to the job role they were to perform.

People using the service offered many positive comments about the care and support they received.

The complaints procedure outlined the steps that would be taken if someone raised an issue of concern to ensure this was dealt with to the person’s satisfaction.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. We saw there had been many parties held in the service such as an Olympics party and a harvest festival.

We saw there was an area called ‘Memory Lane’ in the service which lent itself to providing a stimulating and orientating environment to older people. The corridor was set out in the theme of a street which had a sweet shop window displaying sweets from years gone by, a telephone box (which contained a telephone for people to use) and a bakery displaying a range of breads and cakes. There was also a ‘market stall’ full of fresh fruit and we saw people helping themselves to the fruit to eat.

We spoke with four people using the service and they all told us they felt safe in the home. They all told us staff were always kind to them and they had not seen anything happen in the home which had caused them concern. One person said, “I feel very safe here” and another said, “I feel much safer here than I did at home.”

We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service. There was a relaxed atmosphere and we saw that people using the service looked comfortable talking to staff.

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 and others.