This inspection took place on 5 and 6 September 2017 and was unannounced

Mercy Care Centre is a purpose built development and situated in Derby. It comprises of two houses. Beaumont House accommodates up to 30 people and Carmel House, which accommodates up to 20 people. They provide residential care to people, those living with dementia and end of life care. There is a sheltered accommodation with in self-contained flats next to the care home. Personal care is provided to people living in these flats.

At the time of our inspection visit there were 47 people in residence and two people were in receipt of personal care and support in their own homes.

At the last inspection of 9 September 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remains Good.

A registered manager was 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 continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs safely and recruitment processes ensured that people were protected from being cared for by unsuitable staff. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.

People were consistently protected from the risk of harm. Risks were assessed and preventative action was taken to reduce the risk of harm to people. People received their prescribed medicines safely. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles.

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.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and compassionate. Staff new people who used the service well and respected and promoted their dignity. People were involved in the development and review of their care plan to enable staff to provide personalised care in line with people's personal preferences. Staff provided continuity of care and worked in a flexible way so that they could meet people's needs in a person centred way.

People maintained contact with family and friends. They had opportunities to take part in meaningful activities, had their religious and diverse and cultural needs met that promoted their wellbeing.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and were confident that their complaints and concerns would be listened to and action taken.

The service continued to be well managed. People and staff had confidence in the registered manager and found they were supported and provided leadership. The registered manager was meeting their regulatory responsibilities. Effective systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided through a range of audits and views sought from people, their relatives and staff to influence the service and drive improvements.

This inspection took place on 1 July 2015 and was unannounced.

Mercy Care Centre is a purpose built development which has two houses – Beaumont House, which is a 30 care home for people with dementia and Carmel House, which is a 20 bedded care home. They offer residential and end of life care. There is also a sheltered accommodation in self-contained flats where personal care is provided to people living in their own accommodation. It is situated in Derby.

The home has a range of communal areas including lounges, dining rooms, and an enclosed well-kept and attractive garden.

At the time of this inspection there were 50 people using the residential service and four people provided with personal care in their own accommodation.

The home has a registered manager. This 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 using the service and relatives we spoke with said they thought the home was safe and had a ‘culture of openness’ which contributed to people feeling safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area. Not all incidents of potential abuse had been reported to the relevant safeguarding authority.

Some people’s risk assessments were in need of improvement to help ensure staff understood how to support them safely.

People using the service and relatives told us they thought medicines were given safely and on time. Some improvements were needed to the way medicines were received into the home to ensure they arrived on time.

People told us they were happy with the competence and skills of the staff who were knowledgeable about the people they cared for, and had a good understanding of how best to meet their needs. Records showed staff had a thorough induction and on-going training.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the home’s training records showed they had attended courses on this.

People said they liked the food. We observed the lunchtime meal being served. The dining room was nicely decorated with fresh flowers on the tables. Staff asked people what they wanted and individual requests were met.

All the people we spoke with told us they liked the staff and got on well with them and we saw many examples of staff working with people in a kind and sensitive way. People said they were actively involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. People also said staff protected their privacy and dignity and we observed this in practice.

People told us they received personalised care that met their needs. Records showed their preferences, for example getting up and going to bed times, were met. Care plans were individual to the people using the service and focused on their strengths and preferences.

People said they were happy with the activities provided. Records showed that people had the opportunity to take part in individual or group activities depending on what they preferred. We observed activities being provided and the atmosphere was lively and people appeared occupied and contented.

People told us they would have no hesitation in speaking out if they had any concerns. Records showed that if a complaint was received, staff responded appropriately. However, not all concerns had been treated as complaints, and followed up accordingly.

People and staff said they were happy with how the home was run and said the registered manager was committed to improving the service. People had the opportunity to share their views about the service at meetings and on an individual basis and changes were made as a result of their input.

The registered manager and staff carried out audits and checks to ensure the home was running smoothly. Records showed they took prompt action if any improvements were needed to the service.