St Vincent House – Southsea is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 27 older people. The majority of people who lived in the home at the time of this inspection were living with a form of dementia.

The home had a registered 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We carried out a previous inspection of this service on 4 November 2013 where we found the service was meeting the requirements in the areas we looked at.

This inspection took place on 26 January 2017 and was unannounced. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people living in St Vincent House – Southsea. Although the home is registered for up to 27 people the registered manager told us the maximum number of people they accommodated was 26 and the home was at full capacity. People had a range of needs, with some being more independent and others requiring a significant amount of support relating to their physical health, mental health, dementia and wellbeing.

People were protected from risks relating to their health, mobility, medicines, nutrition and behaviours. Staff had assessed individual risks to people and had taken action to seek guidance and minimise identified risks. Where accidents and incidents had taken place, these had been reviewed and action had been taken to reduce the risks of reoccurrence. Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and as prescribed by their doctor.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People enjoyed pleasant interactions with staff which demonstrated people felt comfortable in their presence. During our inspection we saw positive and caring interactions between people and staff. We found staff had caring attitudes towards people and provided people with affection and humour. Staff knew people’s needs, preferences, likes and dislikes and spoke about people with respect and admiration.

Staff knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse which also helped protect people. Staff knew what signs to look out for and the procedures to follow should they need to report concerns. Safeguarding information and contact numbers for the relevant bodies were accessible. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns.

Recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure only people of good character were employed by the home. Staff underwent Disclosure and Barring Service (police record) checks before they started work in order to ensure they were suitable to work with people who were vulnerable.

Staffing numbers at the service were sufficient to meet people’s needs and provide them with the care and support they required. Staff had the competencies and information they required in order to meet people’s needs. Staff received sufficient training as well as regular supervision and appraisal. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and put it into practice. Where people had been unable to make a particular decision at a particular time, their capacity had been assessed and best interests decisions had taken place and had been recorded. Where people were being deprived of their liberty for their own safety the registered manager had made Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications to the local authority.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink in ways that met their needs and preferences. People were supported to make choices about what they wanted to eat and food was presented in ways which met people’s individual needs. People spoke highly of the food and where people had specific needs relating to their diet, these were responded to. Great care was taken to encourage people to eat and where people were provided

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time

On the day of our visit we observed care being given by experienced and caring staff. People were treated with dignity and respect. People's wishes were, as far as possible, taken into account when receiving care and the home provided an appropriate range of activities for people to take part in.

During our visit we particularly noted that the home had an innovative and enthusiastic manager in place who had already started to implement procedures to care for people with complex mental health needs more effectively. We saw the results of this intervention by the staff members' positive attitude to work and the wellbeing of people living in the home.

We spoke with four people, two of whom were able to tell us about their experiences of living in the home. One person told us "they're all very nice" and another person said they felt safe. We spoke with two relatives, one of whom told us "we can't fault it".

We spoke with four members of staff who all told us they felt well supported in their work.

We spoke to three people during out visit and to a relative of someone living at the home. We also spoke to two health and social care professionals, two staff and to the acting manager.

People said they received the care and support they needed and that staff treated them with respect and kindness.

Each person had a care plan with information about how staff supported them. People said they were consulted about their care needs but we noted care plans were not signed by people or their representative.

Health and social care professionals told us the home looked after people well.

People told us they felt safe in the home and that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet their needs.

During the lunchtime we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool to help us see what people's experiences at mealtimes were. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time and whether they have positive experiences. This includes looking at the support that is given to them by the staff. We spent 45 minutes observing at lunchtime and found that people had positive experiences. Staff were observed assisting people in a calm, friendly and polite manner. We saw staff dealt with people’s behaviour needs as set out in care plans. The meal time was calm and well organised.

People told us that they were happy with the care provided and that they felt safe and well looked after. They were satisfied that the care was tailored to their needs, that it maintained their dignity and privacy and that they were involved in its planning and delivery.

To help us understand the experience of people using the service, we used our Short Observation Framework for Inspection tool (SOFI). This allowed us to spend time watching what was going on in a service and to record how people spend their time, the support they got and whether or not they had positive experiences. Using this, we found that staff had the necessary time and skills to care for people well.

We spoke with two relatives who praised the standard of care given; the needs of their relatives were assessed and delivered satisfactorily without exception.

We also spoke with the District Nursing Team and a Community Psychiatric Nurse, who felt that the care given was good and that staff at the home would refer people to their services appropriately.