St Andrews House provides care for up to 24 older people who may be living with dementia or mobility needs. On the day of inspection there were 19 people living at the service.

The service is a large well maintained detached property set in large grounds. Accommodation is provided over two floors with a passenger lift and stair lift to help people easily reach the upper floor.

At the last inspection in July 2015 the service was rated as good. At this inspection in July 2017 we found the service remained good.

Why the service is rated Good

As the service was rated as Good at the last inspection a shorter report has been produced to reflect the fact the service continues to provide good care.

People remained safe at the home. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs in a timely way. Risks were assessed to ensure people and their environment were kept safe. People’s medicines were managed safely. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to protect people from the risks of employing unsuitable staff. People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff knew how to recognise and report any suspicion of abuse.

People continued to receive effective care because staff were trained and skilled in meeting people’s needs. People received regular visits, when necessary, from healthcare professionals. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and to receive healthy well balanced meals.

People continued to receive a caring service. We observed staff to be kind, caring and respectful of people’s privacy and dignity. People described staff as “Really caring” and “Excellent.” People and their representatives were involved in planning their care.

The service remained responsive to people's individual needs. People received person-centred care and staff knew people’s needs well. People were supported to continue with previous interests. There was a regular programme of activities on offer and staff spent time with people individually. There was a system in place to manage any concerns that were raised.

The service continued to be well led. People knew the registered manager well and staff told us they were well supported. Staff knew the values of the service and told us how they ensured they put them into practice. There was an effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

We the Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspected St Andrews House as part of a scheduled inspection. Some of the people who lived at the home had dementia so we used the SOFI observation tool as well as talking with people.

Care workers understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and we saw that they had obtained people’s consent before providing care and treatment to them.

People we spoke with were positive about the care delivered. Comments included, "They (the care workers) are very helpful if we want anything done” and “They are helpful, friendly and warm. We are all like friends here”.

During the visit we talked with four people who used the service. People told us that care workers treated them well and their privacy and dignity were respected.

We saw that the premises were safe, suitable and well maintained. The property had adequate access for people with disabilities.

Suitable arrangements were in place to support care workers. All the care workers we talked with told us that they felt supported. We saw that care workers had received training, supervision and appraisal.

Records were kept securely and were easily accessed. We found that the care records were not always accurate. Care records did not always contain accurate information on people's current care and welfare needs.

We used various methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had dementia and were not always able to tell us about their experiences

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. During the visit we spoke with four people who used the service. People told us that care staff treated them well and their privacy and dignity were respected. A relative said "The staff always ask people what they want, they give them choices about what they would like to eat.”

People we spoke with told us that they were satisfied with the care they received. One person said "They help me when I am in the bath and talk to me when they are providing care.”

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We spoke with four people who told us that they would speak with a member of staff if they felt unsafe.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. We looked at four records and saw that the care staff were subject to a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.

People we spoke with told us that they felt confident that the manager and that care staff would take complaints seriously and act on concerns appropriately. The complaints process was understood by people and was well publicised.

St Andrews House provides care for up to 24 older people who may be living with dementia or mobility needs. On the day of inspection there were 19 people living at the service.

The service is a large well maintained detached property set in large grounds. Accommodation is provided over two floors with a passenger lift and stair lift to help people easily reach the upper floor.

At the last inspection in July 2015 the service was rated as good. At this inspection in July 2017 we found the service remained good.

Why the service is rated Good

As the service was rated as Good at the last inspection a shorter report has been produced to reflect the fact the service continues to provide good care.

People remained safe at the home. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs in a timely way. Risks were assessed to ensure people and their environment were kept safe. People’s medicines were managed safely. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to protect people from the risks of employing unsuitable staff. People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff knew how to recognise and report any suspicion of abuse.

People continued to receive effective care because staff were trained and skilled in meeting people’s needs. People received regular visits, when necessary, from healthcare professionals. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and to receive healthy well balanced meals.

People continued to receive a caring service. We observed staff to be kind, caring and respectful of people’s privacy and dignity. People described staff as “Really caring” and “Excellent.” People and their representatives were involved in planning their care.

The service remained responsive to people's individual needs. People received person-centred care and staff knew people’s needs well. People were supported to continue with previous interests. There was a regular programme of activities on offer and staff spent time with people individually. There was a system in place to manage any concerns that were raised.

The service continued to be well led. People knew the registered manager well and staff told us they were well supported. Staff knew the values of the service and told us how they ensured they put them into practice. There was an effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.