Nicholas Rothwell House provides accommodation with personal care for up to 20 older people. The service provides both respite and long-term care for older people who are mobile but may require support with personal care. The home is situated on the outskirts of Northampton and is a purpose built property with indoor and outdoor communal areas for people to use. There were 19 people in residence when we inspected, including five people accommodated on a short stay respite care basis ranging between one and six weeks duration.

At the last inspection on 23 and 28 September 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

People were safe. Their needs had been assessed prior to admission and they each had an agreed care plan that was regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to receive the care and support they needed. There were sufficient numbers of experienced and trained staff to safely meet people’s assessed needs. People were protected by robust recruitment procedures from receiving unsafe care from staff that were unsuited to the job. They were safeguarded from abuse and poor practice by staff that knew what action they needed to take if they suspected this was happening.

People received care and support from staff that knew what was expected of them and they carried out their duties effectively and with compassion. People were treated equally and shown respect as individuals with a range of needs that came together from diverse backgrounds. Care plans were personalised and reflected each person’s individual needs and provided staff with the information and guidance they needed to manage risk and keep people safe. Risks to people’s safety were reviewed as their needs and dependencies changed.

People were encouraged and enabled to do things for themselves by friendly staff that were responsive and attentive. Their individual preferences for the way they liked to receive their care and support were respected. Staff had insight into people’s capabilities and aspirations. People’s capacity to make informed choices had been assessed and the provider and staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the importance of seeking people’s consent when receiving care and support.

People who needed encouragement and support with eating a healthy diet received the help they required. They had enough to eat and drink.

People had access to community healthcare professionals and received timely medical attention when this was needed. There were appropriate arrangements in place for people to have regular healthcare check-ups.

Medicines were appropriately and safely managed and staff had received the training they needed in the safe administration of medicines. Medicines were securely stored and there were suitable arrangements in place for their timely administration.

People, and where appropriate, their family or other representatives were assured that if they were unhappy with the care provided they would be listened to and that appropriate action would be taken to resolve matters.

During our inspection visit to Nicholas Rothwell House, we spoke with several people who were living at the service and two members of staff and the manager.

People living in the home expressed satisfaction with the care and service that they received. They told us that they were well looked after by all the staff working at the home. One person said “I like all the staff and they are very nice and we have a very good choice of meals”. They also told us that they had one to one support from staff when they went out into the community. They told us that this made them feel safe. Another person told us that they did different activities and had recently enjoyed going on an outing in to the community with most of the other people who lived at the home. They also told us that the home was always clean and pleasantly decorated and they received their medication on time.

The people also told us that they liked the food and discussed the menu for the week in their meetings with support from care staff. They also told us that the staff listened and resolved any concerns or complaints they had about the service received. The staff we spoke with told us that they spoke to the people every day to find out their views about how the care provided by them was meeting their individual needs.

During the inspection visit we spoke with three people who used the service and three staff who were on duty. We also spoke to two directors of the board of the service and the registered manager.

People who used the service expressed satisfaction with the care and service that they received. All the people we spoke with told us that Nicholas Rothwell House was very homely and that staff looked after them well. They told us that the food was very good. They said that they had two choices of meals at lunch time and if they did not like what was on the menu they could have another option. One person told us” I like it here and the staff are marvellous” and they spoke to them in a dignified manner. They also told us that their room was lovely and “I have my own things in the room”. Another person told us “I could not ask for a better place than this home”. They told us “I am here for respite care and I have been here before”.

All the people told us that they all felt safe living at the home and they felt happy to tell any staff if they had any concerns. They told us that they had meetings on a monthly basis and they were asked about their opinions about meals, activities and anything they were not happy about. One person told us “all the staff listens to me and I am happy here” They also said that they went to bed when they were ready to go to sleep. Another person told us that “The staff get training and know how to look after us”.

All the people we spoke with at the site visit were able to verbally express their views very well about living at the home. They all told us that the meals provided were very good, and they had very good choices.

The staff were said to be very good. One person said “they cannot do enough for us, anything we ask, they will do it”. Another person said “if you are not well, they get the doctor to see you and they look after you”.

People said staff respected their privacy and dignity, and spoke to them nicely. They said if they had any concerns, they would speak to the staff and they would listen to them. All the people told us that they had no complaints or concerns about the home.

People told us the home was very clean, pleasantly decorated and had a homely atmosphere.

This inspection took place on the 23rd and 28th September 2015 and was unannounced.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people. The service provides both respite and long term care for older people who are mobile but who may require some support with personal care. People who stay for respite may come whilst carers are on holiday or may stay following an illness or operation. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living there and five people staying for respite.

The service has a registered manager supported by a care manager. 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.

We saw that people were well cared for and the home had a relaxed atmosphere. Everyone we spoke to complimented the staff who supported them.

There were appropriate recruitment processes in place and people felt safe in the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and knew how to respond if they had any concerns.

Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training which focussed on helping them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided. Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments if people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day to day routines. People’s health care and nutritional needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

People received care from staff that respected their individuality and were kind and compassionate. Their needs were assessed prior to coming to the home and individualised care plans were in place and were kept under review. Staff had taken time to understand peoples likes, dislikes and past life’s and enabled people to participate in activities either within groups or on an individual basis.

People were cared for by staff who were respectful of their dignity and who demonstrated an understanding of each person’s needs. This was evident in the way staff spoke to people and engaged in conversations with them. Relatives commented positively about the care their relative was receiving and it was evident that people could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

There were a variety of audits in place and action was taken to address any shortfalls. Management and trustees were visible and open to feedback, actively looking at ways to improve and develop the service.