We inspected The Chestnuts Care Home on 20 and 21 December 2016. The inspection was unannounced. The Chestnut Care Home provides support and accommodation for up to 29 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post who was registered with the CQC. 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.

This inspection at The Chestnuts Care home was the first inspection under our new methodology since its new registration in February 2016.

The provider had systems in place to protect people against abuse and harm. The registered provider had effective policies and procedures that gave staff guidance on how to report abuse. The registered manager had robust systems in place to record and investigate any concerns.

Risks to people's safety had been assessed and actions taken to protect people from the risk of harm. However, there was no recent fire risk assessment in place that was carried out by a trained competent person. This was brought to the attention of the registered manager who took immediate action by booking an appropriate assessment and adding fire risk assessment to the auditing system.

Medicines were managed safely and people had access to their medicines when they needed them.

Staff were well trained with the right skills and knowledge to provide people with the care and assistance they needed. Staff met together regularly and felt supported by the manager. However, there were gaps in the frequency of one to one supervisions carried out by the management team. We reported our concerns to the registered manager who took immediate action by improving the supervision process. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.

There was sufficient staff to provide care to people throughout the day and night. When staff were recruited, they were subject to checks to ensure they were safe to work in the care sector. However, we found that there were inconsistencies in chasing two references prior to new staff starting work. Disclosure and Barring Service checks were being requested by the registered manager but these were not being reviewed. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were adhered to for more complex decisions. People's mental capacity was being assessed appropriately and meetings took place to make decisions on people's behalf and in their best interests, when they were unable to do so. However, mental capacity assessments for less complex decisions were not decision specific. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Appropriate applications to restrict people's freedom had been submitted and the least restrictive options were considered as per the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were assisted with their nutrition and hydration needs. Staff were completing fluid and eating charts for those that need it. People were involved with the development of the menu through meetings and tasting sessions with the supplier.

People had freedom of choice at the service. People could decorate their rooms to their own tastes and choose if they wished to participate in any activity. Staff respected people's decisions.

People told us they were very satisfied with the care staff and the support they provided. Relatives told us they were happy with the service their loved ones received. Staff communicated with people in ways that were understood when giving support. Staff and the registered manager had got to know people well. Staff could build positiv