Tasker House provides care and support for up to 26 older people with a wide range of needs for personal care and support. This includes people who may have social, physical and dementia care needs. There were 25 people using the service when we visited.. At the last inspection, in June 2015, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

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

People continued to receive safe care. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner.

Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People received their prescribed medicines as prescribed.

The care that people received continued to be effective. There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Staff received an induction process and on-going training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people. Staff were well supported with regular supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way and people had developed positive relationships with them. Staff were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. They knew the people who used the service well and people and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People continued to receive care that was responsive to their needs. People's care plans had been developed with them to identify what support they required and how they would like this to be provided. People participated in a wide range of activities which kept them entertained and enabled them to follow their hobbies. People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to all.

The culture was open and honest and focused on each person as an individual. Staff put people first, and were committed to continually improving each person's quality of life. Quality assurance systems ensured people received a high quality service driven by improvement.

This inspection took place on 03 June 2015 and was unannounced.

Tasker House provides care and support for up to 26 older people with a wide range of needs for personal care and support. This includes people who may have social, physical and dementia care needs. There were 25 people using the service when we visited.

The service had a manager who had been in post for four weeks at the time of our visit, so they had not yet registered as a manager with the Care Quality Commission. They were being supported by the provider and the previous manager who had been in post for 17 years. 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.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns.

Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and action was taken to keep people safe, minimising any risks to health and safety. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were regularly calculated and adjusted according to people’s changing needs.

Staff had been recruited using a robust process, with effective recruitment checks completed.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.

Staff received appropriate support and training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They received regular one to one supervision sessions and an annual appraisal to ensure they were supported to carry out their role.

People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation. Where people’s liberty was deprived, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] applications had been approved by the statutory body.

We observed that staff sought and obtained people’s consent before they helped them. When people declined, their wishes were respected and staff checked again a short while later to make sure people had not changed their mind.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to ensure their dietary needs were met.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required.

Staff communicated effectively with people, responded to their needs promptly and treated them with kindness and compassion.

People’s personal views and preferences were responded to and staff supported people to do the things they wanted to do.

People received care that was responsive to their needs and centred around them as individuals.

People were at the heart of the service and they were supported to take part in meaningful activities and pursue hobbies and interests.

The home had an effective complaints procedure in place. Staff were responsive to concerns and when issues were raised these were acted upon promptly.

The service was well-led and staff were well supported and motivated to do a good job.

We saw that people were encouraged to have their say about how the quality of services could be improved and were positive about the leadership provided by the manager and the provider.

Effective quality assurance systems were in place to obtain feedback, monitor performance and manage risks.

People who used the service told us that they liked living at the home.One person who used the service told us, " The staff and management are so caring and so supportive and cheerful, they keep me going." A relative who spoke with us said " The care is excellent, I have no complaints whatsoever"

We found the home to be compliant in the regulations we examined against.

During our visit people told us that staff treated them with respect and encouraged them to make choices about their day to day life. People told us, and we heard, staff speak with them in a kind and respectful manner. We observed people being supported throughout the day of our visit. Care workers actively assisted people with meals and drinks when needed. A visitor we spoke with explained how the manager was always available and listened carefully to what was said and more importunately acted on any issues raised. Other people we spoke with told us “the care is very good, the staff are very friendly.” Another person said “I have been here a few years now, it is very good here”. A relative told us that they were very happy with the care their relative had received whilst at the home.

We found that the home was a safe and caring environment for the people who used the service.

Many of the people living at Tasker House had a diagnosis of dementia; as such their ability to recall their experiences and express their views was limited. In order to obtain information about peoples’ experiences of living at Tasker House and assess how their needs were being met by the staff, we spent time observing people’s engagement, demeanour and body language.

We saw the staff were attentive, sensitive to people’s individual needs and involved them in conversation, activities and decisions about aspects of their daily lives.

People told us that they felt they were well looked after at Tasker House and that the staff knew how they needed and wished to be supported. They told us the staff responded promptly and had the skills to care for them appropriately. They told us the staff were nice to them, they felt safe and knew how to raise any concerns should they need to do so.

One person told us “I am very pleased to be living here, I am able to make decisions about how and where to spend my time, I can choose what time I get up and go to bed, the staff are lovely and are very helpful. I can go out with my relatives, the visiting times are flexible and the staff always make my relatives welcome”.