Mapleton Road is a care home without nursing that provides care for up to 24 people with dementia. At the time of our inspection the service was providing care for 23 people.

We previously inspected Mapleton Road in January 2014 and at the time of the inspection we found the service to be meeting all standards except that they did not have sufficient quality assurance practices in place. Upon our inspection in November 2016, we found that the service was carrying out robust quality assurance practices.

The service had 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.

The service was safe and people using the service communicated this to us. Staff demonstrated their knowledge of safeguarding adults and what action to take if they had any concerns. The service reported any accidents and incidents as well as safeguarding's to the relevant local authority and to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The service had risk assessments in place and people using the service were protected from harm where risks were identified. Risk assessments contained clear mitigation plans and were updated on a monthly basis.

Staffing levels were efficient in meeting the level of need at the service and staff told us that any absences were always covered. Staff were recruited safely and in line with the relevant checks.

People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely and audits were completed to ensure consistency.

The service was effective and we saw that people received care based on best practice from staff who had the knowledge and skills through training and supervision to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us they were supported in their roles and that they received regular training.

Consent to care and treatment was sought and we saw examples of this in people’s care plans and in practice. Staff demonstrated a sound understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the registered manager had notified CQC of DoLS authorisations.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and maintain a balanced diet. People told us they enjoyed the food and that it was varied. Dietary needs were adhered to and monitored where relevant and the cook had good understanding of people’s dietary requirements and preferences.

People were supported to maintain good health and have access to on-going healthcare support. Referrals to healthcare professionals were prompt and records of people’s health needs were documented.

The service was caring and we observed positive caring relationships with staff and people using the service. People told us they were happy with their care. People were supported to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. People were given choice and independence was promoted. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

The service was responsive and care planning was detailed. People’s preferences, wishes and aspirations were identified and people were supported to follow their interests. Care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis and changes were recorded accordingly.

Concerns and complaints were encouraged and responded to and people knew how to complain and share their experiences. People using the services were encouraged to provide feedback, as were professionals. Compliments were received in abundance and displayed on a notice board.

The service was well led and management promoted a positive culture that was open and transparent. The service demonstrated good visible leadership and the registered manager understood their responsibilities. Quality assurance practic

People told us that they were happy in the home and one person commented, "I like it very much here." We found that care was planned and delivered that took account of people's wishes and risks were identified and managed. One relative told us that their family member was safe in the home.

People told us that they liked the food and there was plenty to eat and drink. We found that the staff spent time with the residents during mealtimes and monitored what they were eating and drinking. People were offered meals appropriate to their needs, for example soft food. People were able to eat in their rooms if they wished.

The home was clean and tidy. There was a programme for cleaning, including the daily cleaning of the rooms, toilets, bathrooms and the kitchen. Some areas such as the kitchen also received deep cleaning weekly. One relative said, "It smells nice here."

The staff were experienced and were trained in relevant subjects such as safeguarding, manual handling and dementia care. They received regular supervision and an annual appraisal. Staff told us that the provider supported their learning and development.

We found that the provided acted on complaints and took them seriously. The provider followed up recommendations from incidents. We did not see any evidence of monitoring the quality of service provision through the use of audits or residents' survey.

The home had a calm and engaged atmosphere. People's rooms were clean and personalised.

We spoke with people who used the service and made observations. Most people were unable to tell us about their experiences but in our observations we saw staff showing warmth and kindness towards people. Some people who were able to communicate verbally told us, “I’ve got the greatest respect for all the staff” and "I would feel comfortable talking to any of them (staff) about any problems."

Before people came to live at Mapleton Road, they were asked for their signed consent for their care plans. People's care plans contained health needs assessments detailing their medical and other requirements, which were reviewed regularly. Staff were trained and knowledgeable about people's individual needs and preferences.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse and people said they felt safe. People were made aware of the complaints system and complaints were investigated and resolved, where possible, to their satisfaction.

People at the home told us that they are well looked after by caring staff. They are happy with the meals provided and they have activities and go out, but would like to access the community more.