We inspected the service on 23 and 24 January 2019. The inspection was unannounced.

Poplars Care Centre 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. Poplars Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 71 frail and elderly people, some of which were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 61 people living at the service. The service is a large extended property and people's accommodation is provided over two floors with a lift available to support people to the upper floor.

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.

People did not always receive their medicines safely. Medicines were not always being stored in line with manufacturers guidelines. People were not always receiving their medicine as prescribed. The registered manager did not always have the necessary oversight of the service to identify some of the concerns we found during our inspection.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained in how to identify abuse and knew how to report it. Risks to people and the environment were assessed, recorded and staff took steps to reduce them.

People had their care and support delivered in line with current legislation and best practice guidance. Staff had the skills and experience to provide effective care and support. Newly recruited staff received an induction which included training courses and gaining experience by shadowing more other staff. Established staff received refresher training that was built around those using the service.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. New staff were recruited safely. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. The registered manager took steps to learn from incidents, accidents and when things went wrong. They used information to help prevent future accidents.

People's nutrition and hydration needs were being met. People were involved in developing menus. Staff sought and followed guidance from health professionals if people had health conditions. People had access to health care and treatment. People's needs were met by the design and adaptation of the premises. People could decorate and furnish their rooms as they wished. Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, and worked in line with its principles.

People felt cared for by staff. They were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them well. Staff used different ways to communicate with people. People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care. People were treated with dignity and had their privacy respected.

Support was provided to people in a personalised way. Each person had their own care plan which had been reviewed taking into account their preferences and views. People were supported to take part in activities of their choosing. People said they knew how to make a complaint, and would do so if the need arose. Complaints and concerns were managed in accordance with the registered provider's policy. People were supported at the end of their lives to have a dignified death. Their preferences and wishes were gathered and staff worked closely with health professionals.

The culture at the service was honest and transparent. Staff said they felt proud to work at the organisation. The staff had oversight of the daily culture in the service, which included the attitudes and behavio

The inspection was carried out on the 20 and 23 September 2016 and was unannounced.

Poplars Care Centre is a care home providing accommodation for up to 71 older people who require nursing and personal care. The home is located in a residential area in Maidstone. At the time of the inspection 65 people lived at the service.

There was a registered manager employed at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

The registered manager was not available on the day of the inspection, and the operations manager and deputy manager assisted with the inspection process.

The registered manager and staff had received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood when and how to support peoples best interest if they lacked capacity to make certain decisions about their care.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Management understood when an application should be made. They were aware of the Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty. The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were protected against the risk of abuse. Staff had been trained in how to protect people, and they knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse towards people. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy. They were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager or outside agencies for example Social Services if this was needed.

People’s needs varied, some people living in the service had a limited ability to verbally communicate with us or engage directly in the inspection process. Therefore we observed their care and staff interactions. People demonstrated that they were happy by showing warmth to management and staff who were supporting them. For example by nodding their head or giving a smile. Staff were attentive and interacted with people in a warm and friendly manner. Staff were available throughout the day, and responded quickly to people’s requests for help.

People and their relatives were involved in planning their own care, and staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs. Nursing staff carried out on-going checks for people’s health needs, and contacted other health professionals for support and advice.

There were enough staff with the skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

There were risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each person who received care. Assessments identified some needs but were not always specific in meeting people’s individual needs, and showing how risks could be minimised.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. There were policies and a procedure in place for the safe administration of medicines. People had access to GPs and other health care professionals. Prompt referrals were made for access to specialist health care professionals.

People were provided with diet that met their needs and wishes. Menus offered variety and choice. People said they liked the home cooked food. Staff respected people and we saw several instances of a kindly touch or a joke and conversation as drinks or the lunch was served.

People were given individual support to take part in their preferred hobbies and interests, and a range of activities were being provided by the activities co-

The inspection was carried out by one Inspector and lasted for six hours. The Inspector was accompanied by a colleague from the Care Quality Commission. During the visit we viewed the premises; talked with people and their relatives; talked with staff, and examined a variety of documentation.

We found that people spoke highly of the care they received at Poplars Care Centre. People’s comments included: “I am very happy here. They look after me very well. I just ring the bell if I want anything.” “It is very nice here, the staff are very good.” And: “All the staff are wonderful. I cannot speak highly enough of them. And it is always spotlessly clean. I love it here.”

We found that people’s individual wishes were respected, and people were treated with respect.

People’s health care needs were met through the nursing and care staff, and through visits from other health professionals.

People said they felt safe in the home, and there were systems in place for reporting any concerns.

The home had reliable systems in place for managing people’s medicines correctly.

The company had robust recruitment procedures in place, which ensured that staff were suitable people to work with vulnerable adults.

The home had on-going monitoring systems to check the quality of the service being given. People’s views were listened to and were taken into account.

At our last inspection visit in November 2012, we gave a compliance action about the management and storage of medication. The provider wrote and informed us that action had been taken to address the concerns raised.

We carried out this visit to inspect medication processes, and assess compliance with this outcome.

The manager was not available at the time of our visit, and the deputy manager assisted us with providing access to clinical rooms and relevant documentation.

We found that the home had carried out significant improvements to provide safer storage and administration of medicines.

The inspection was carried out by one Inspector and lasted for seven hours. The home’s registered manager and business manager were present throughout the inspection. During the visit we talked with eight other staff, and three relatives. We visited all areas of the home and talked with people receiving care in different units. The home was divided into three units, Magnolia, Wisteria and Willow, so that people could easily identify which area they were living in.

We found that the home had a pleasant and friendly atmosphere, and staff were welcoming to visitors. People said that the care was “very good” and that they were confident in the staff who were caring for them.

Two relatives said that the care was “brilliant”, and people receiving care said that “They are very good to us” and “Yes, they look after us very well.”

Most of the people that we spoke to were happy with the food provided. We found that monthly checks were carried out to check people's weights and nutritional management.

We found that medication was given reliably. We identified concerns in regards to storage of some medicines, and some unclear recording processes.

The home provided a suitable range of equipment for caring for people, and this was satisfactorily maintained.

We found that the home provided all of the mandatory training for staff, and ensured this was kept up to date.

We saw that records were stored securely, and were well maintained and appropriately completed.

People using the service told us they received the care and support they needed and were supported in the ways that they preferred. People told us that staff listened to them, were polite kind and caring and respected their dignity and independence.

People said they could choose what to do each day. They could attend activities, spend time by themselves or with others in the lounges. They had choice of what to eat at mealtimes, and overall they liked the meals provided.

People said they were happy to approach the manager or staff if they were not happy with anything and they were listened to.

Comments that people made about the service included,

“They are wonderful, they couldn’t treat me better if I was the Queen, nothing is too much trouble”

“I have a bath once a week, that is my choice and enough, I don’t do enough to get dirty, I am washed top to toe each day”

“The food is good and varied”

“Staff are happy and cheerful”

“ Staff make sure I do not try to do too much too soon, they make sure I am safe”

“ I prefer my own company, they understand that”

Visitors we spoke with said they were satisfied with the service, their comments included,

“When we came to look around the deputy manager was very welcoming”

“ Staff are helpful, sometimes they need to be reminded to speak up more if people can’t hear well”

“Staff have been lovely”

“We chose the room we wanted, it is always clean and tidy”