Paxton Hall is a care home providing accommodation for up to 39 older people, some of whom live with dementia. It is not registered to provide nursing care. 26 people were living at the service on the day of our inspection.

This unannounced inspection took place on 27 June 2017. At the last inspection on 16 January 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found overall the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service and to keep them safe. This included assisting people safely with their mobility and with their medicines.

Staff had received training to safely assist and support people. The recruitment and selection procedure ensured that only suitable staff were recruited to work with people using the service. There were enough staff employed to ensure people that peoples needs were met.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have choice and control over their lives as much as possible.

The management and care staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. Staff offered people choices such as to how they spent their day and the meals they wished to eat. These choices were respected and actioned by staff.

People’s needs were assessed, so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. There was a variety of activities and interests available for people to take part in so they did not become socially isolated.

People received the support required to maintain a healthy diet and were able to choose meals they preferred. People had access to a range of health care professionals, when they needed them.

People were clear about raising any concerns they had and were confident they would be responded to.

Staff understood the values of the service in relation to providing people with care that was dignified and in a respectful manner. We observed staff supporting people in a respectful and dignified manner during our inspection.

The provider had processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People had been consulted about how they wished their care to be delivered and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were provided with the opportunity to give their feedback about the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Paxton Hall is a care home providing accommodation for up to 39 older people, some of whom live with dementia. It is not registered to provide nursing care. 26 people were living at the service on the day of our inspection.

This unannounced inspection took place on 27 June 2017. At the last inspection on 16 January 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found overall the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service and to keep them safe. This included assisting people safely with their mobility and with their medicines.

Staff had received training to safely assist and support people. The recruitment and selection procedure ensured that only suitable staff were recruited to work with people using the service. There were enough staff employed to ensure people that peoples needs were met.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have choice and control over their lives as much as possible.

The management and care staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. Staff offered people choices such as to how they spent their day and the meals they wished to eat. These choices were respected and actioned by staff.

People’s needs were assessed, so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. There was a variety of activities and interests available for people to take part in so they did not become socially isolated.

People received the support required to maintain a healthy diet and were able to choose meals they preferred. People had access to a range of health care professionals, when they needed them.

People were clear about raising any concerns they had and were confident they would be responded to.

Staff understood the values of the service in relation to providing people with care that was dignified and in a respectful manner. We observed staff supporting people in a respectful and dignified manner during our inspection.

The provider had processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People had been consulted about how they wished their care to be delivered and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were provided with the opportunity to give their feedback about the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

During our inspection on 16 October 2012, we had concerns that staff were not adequately supported as there was no formal system in place to appraise and supervise staff. The provider sent us an action plan that provided us details of when they would be compliant. During this inspection on 30 April 2013, we found that appropriate formal systems had been put in place.

We found that people’s care records gave staff the information they required to provide individual care and support. Risks had been identified and minimised.

Medication administration, storage and recording were in good order and people were not put at risk of being given incorrect medicines.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the food they were provided, and told us they were able to make choices.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people we spoke with told us they had no complaints. The home had dealt with complaints appropriately and they were in the process of investigating a recent complaint from a family.

During our inspection on 16 October 2012, we spoke with six people who lived in the home. They all said that they were involved in the planning of their care. They also told us they were asked their views about the care provided at their regular ‘residents meetings’ and through a questionnaire. One person told us, "It’s a wonderful place. We are well looked after". They all told us they felt safe and would raise any concerns with the manager.

We observed staff supporting people in a kind and calm manner. We observed that staff spoke respectfully with people. Staff had been provided with appropriate training to enable them to meet the needs of the people who lived in the home.

The organisation had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and action was taken to address any issues that were highlighted as needing improvement.

We found that the provider had not ensured that all staff had been formally supervised and appraised.

People with whom we spoke were unable to tell us their views about how the home supports them, however, we saw that staff were interacting with people who use the service in an appropriate way when supporting them with their care needs. We also found that staff were aware of people's individual care and support needs and how these were to be met.

We received positive comments from people with whom we spoke. They told us they were satisfied with their care and they had confidence in the capability of the staff. Visitors to the home described the standard of care as “excellent” and “very good”. No one had any concerns or complaints about the care or about the home.

People felt safe living at the home and they felt actively listened to. Their views about the home were sought, in areas such as the standard of food, cleanliness of the home and the provision of social activities, and they advised us that they were satisfied with the action taken to improve any areas that they had identified.