We inspected the service on 23 July 2018. The inspection was unannounced and was the provider’s first inspection since it was registered.

Nottingham Care Village is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Nottingham Care Village can accommodate 63 older people and people living with dementia, in one adapted building. Accommodation is provided on two floors; a passenger lift is available. At the time of our inspection 17 people were using the service. Also, within the home are eight apartments that on the upper floor and rented to people independent of the care home. There is no separate access entry to these apartments.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 inspection identified shortfalls in how risks associated with people’s needs and the environment were assessed and managed. Staff did not always have the required information to effectively manage known risks. Checks on the premises to ensure people lived in a safe environment, were not undertaken within the expected timeframes or managed and monitored as required to ensure people’s safety.

Shortfalls were identified in the management of people’s medicines that had potential to impact on people’s health needs. Short notice of staff’s unavailability had impacted on how the service was effectively managed. Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place and followed.

Improvements had been in the management of infection control, following an audit by the local clinical commissioning group earlier in the year. Accidents and incidents were recorded and falls were analysed for lessons learnt. Records of injuries people sustained were not effectively completed.

Staff had not received the expected training and support, and staff had received limited opportunities to discuss and review their work and performance.

People received sufficient to eat and drink, but wanted a more varied menu. Nutritional needs had been assessed, but information relating to dietary needs and risks had not appropriately been shared with kitchen staff.

Staff understanding of the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 varied. Where people lacked mental capacity to consent to specific decisions, documentation did not show how best interest decisions had been made. Where concerns had been identified in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, action had been taken to safeguard people.

Systems were in place to share information with external agencies. People’s needs were assessed and included consideration of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. The design and layout of the building considered people’s needs. However, apartments were not part of the service. This meant there was a potential risk to people, including their right to privacy and dignity because of unknown visitors to apartments of people who rented independently and had no separate entry.

People were positive about the care provided by staff who they thought were knowledgeable about their needs, preferences and routines. Advocacy information was available for people. People had opportunities to discuss their care and support needs.

People received limited social activities and opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies. Information available for staff about people’s needs was either not current or was contradictory or not followed by staff. The provider’s complaint procedure was available for people.

The systems and processes in place to check on