The inspection visit took place on 3 October 2017 and was unannounced. The previous comprehensive inspection was carried out on 9 September 2015. At that time the service was meeting the requirements of regulations and rated Good.

Parc Vro is registered to provide residential care for up to 15 older people some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people living at the service.

The service is situated in a rural area close to the village of St Mawgan near Helston. Parc Vro is a converted house set over two floors. The upper floor was accessed by stairs or a passenger lift. The first floor had various split levels and a stair lift was available for people with mobility problems. There were a range of aids and adaptations suitable to support the needs of people using the service. There was also an external garden area suitable for people to use.

There is no condition for the service to have a registered manager in post. The registered provider had reduced the time they spent at the service, but was available to support the manager in post who had responsibility for the day to day operation of the home and to support staff and operational systems used by 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 manager was preparing to submit an application for registration with the Commission. People and relatives all described the management of the service as open and approachable.

People and family members all spoke positively about the service. They told us that they or their relative was safe living at the service and that staff were kind, friendly and treated people well. They told us that the manager was always available and approachable. Comments included, “[Relative] has a call alarm system in their room,” and “Yes, I feel very safe living here. I get all the help I need.”

On the day of the inspection visit there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the service. We observed people had a good relationship with staff and staff interacted with people in a caring and respectful manner. People told us, “They [staff] are so kind and helpful and considerate” and “All the staff are very caring. It’s a lovely place to live.”

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff had a good understanding of how to identify and act on any allegations of abuse.

The manager used effective systems to record and report on, accidents and incidents and take action when required.

Risk assessment were regularly updated and changes made as necessary so staff were responding to current risk levels.

Management and staff had a good understanding of the underlying principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and their families were given information about how to complain. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

The service was generally well maintained and clean. However a ground floor bathroom was cluttered with equipment and the radiator cover outside this room required painting. The manager agreed to address these issues raised at the time of the inspection.

There were no incontinence odours evident. People’s bedrooms were personalised to give them a familiar feel. One person told us they loved the fact they had personal items around them including specific items of

We carried out this unannounced inspection of Parc Vro on 8 September 2015. Parc Vro is a care home that provides residential care for up to 15 people. On the day of the inspection there were 15 people using the service. The service was last inspected in January 2014 and met the requirements of regulation.

The service does not have a condition to have a registered manager as the registered provider manages the service on a day to day basis. 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. However a deputy manager was in post to manage the service on a day to day basis and to support the registered provider.

The service had safe arrangements for the management and administration of medicines. It was clear from the medicine records that people received their medicines as prescribed. Some people required prescribed creams The creams were dated when opened. This helped staff to know when the cream would expire and was no longer safe to use.

There were sufficient numbers of care staff to support the needs of the people living at the service. However, the service was experiencing a temporary shortage of available staff due to some sick leave. Current staff members were working flexibly to ensure all shifts were maintained to a level which met peoples’ needs. Staff told us; “It can be tricky but we work well as a team and the shifts are covered” and “Some shifts can be long but if we have a long week the manager makes sure it’s shorter the week after”.

The registered person was working towards developing staff training needs to meet the new care certificate. This sets standards for the induction and training for staff working in health and social care roles. Two staff members said they had good access to a range of training. A staff member told us, “Besides the mandatory training we can choose options which we feel would be useful to us. We recently did first aid and dementia care”.

Our findings were that people were being cared for by competent and experienced staff, people had choices in their daily lives and their mobility was supported appropriately. Staff working at the service understood the needs of people they supported, so they could respond to them effectively. We observed care being provided and spoke with people who lived at the service and a visitor. All spoke positively about the staff and the registered person and felt they were meeting people’s needs. One person told us, “They [staff] are all kind and patient. It’s a lovely place to live and be cared for”. A family member told us, “I come here regularly. Yes the staff do a good job, people are well cared for”.

Most people living at the service had the mental capacity to make informed decisions for themselves. For those who didn’t, there were authorisations in place regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This was to protect people and uphold their rights.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a good understanding of what might constitute abuse and how to report it. All were confident that any allegations would be fully investigated and action would be taken to make sure people were safe.

The service had an effective recruitment process in place to ensure new staff were safe to work with people requiring care and support. Pre-employment checks had been completed to help ensure people’s safety. There were enough skilled and experienced staff to help ensure the safety of people who used the service.

People told us they knew how to complain and would be happy to speak with the registered manager if they had any concerns.

There were a variety of methods in use to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included a satisfaction surveys for people using the service and their relatives as well as the staff team. Overall satisfaction with the service was seen to be positive.

When we inspected Parc Vro on the 9 October 2013 we had some concerns and set compliance actions. This inspection was to review the compliance actions we set Parc Vro with regards to the management of medicines and the recruitment of staff.

We spent time with the registered manager and reviewed the records, policies and procedures in place in order to reach our judgement.

At this inspection we found that people received their prescribed medication at the appropriate times, and the service had appropriate policies and procedures in place to protect people from the risks associated with medicines.

We saw, from the staff files we reviewed, that Parc Vro undertook appropriate checks before staff commenced working at the home.

We spoke with five people who received care from Parc Vro residential home, two members of staff, the registered manager and a visiting healthcare professional. The visiting healthcare professional was positive and had no concerns about the care provided at Parc Vro. People who used the service were positive about the care they received and told us “couldn’t be better”, and “the staff are very kind”. People were complimentary about the quality and quantity of food, saying “it is always very good, and plenty of it”.

Peoples’ views and experiences had been considered in the way the home was run, and peoples’ privacy and dignity was respected.

Peoples’ care and treatment met their needs and protected their rights.

We reviewed medication records and saw that the provider did not have appropriate procedures for recording and safe administration of medications for people who lived at the home.

We reviewed the recruitment procedures, and found that appropriate checks were not made before staff commenced working for Parc Vro.

We saw there was an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at Parc Vro.

We spoke with eight people who received care from Parc Vro Residential Home. Everyone we spoke with was generally positive about the care they received and told us, “It is wonderful here. The staff are very caring”. One person was complimentary about the standard of care received and commented, “They are good, everything is done to a high standard. I have a choice of when I get up and I go to bed when I’m tired”.

People told us and we saw evidence of pre-care assessments of peoples' needs to ensure the home could provide the required level of care. The care plans we looked at were sufficiently detailed to direct and inform staff as to how care was to be provided. We saw evidence of regular reviews of care to ensure the care provided took account of any changes that had occurred.

We reviewed people’s care records and shared a meal with people who lived at the home over lunch time. The meals were freshly cooked and were of a good standard. We saw that people who used the service were supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration.

We reviewed medication records and saw that the provider was not following appropriate procedures for recording and safe administration of medications for people who lived at the home.

We inspected the premises and assessed that people who used the service and people who worked in or visited the premises were kept safe in accessible surroundings that promoted their wellbeing.