This inspection visit took place on 01 November 2017 and was unannounced. The Yachtsman Rest Home is registered to provide personal care for up to 32 people. They support mainly older people or people with dementia. Accommodation is on three floors with a passenger lift for access between the floors. There are two lounges and dining rooms and a smaller quiet lounge. At the time of our inspection visit there were 29 people who lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Although a number of people had limited verbal communication and were unable to converse with us, we were able to speak with four people who lived at the home. They told us they were happy and supported by staff who cared for them and treated them well. One person said, “The staff have been very kind to me since I moved here. It’s much better than I thought it would be.” A visiting relative said, “The staff are really kind and patient. They do a wonderful job.”

People visiting the home told us they were made welcome by friendly and caring staff and had unrestricted access to their relatives. They told us they were happy with the care provided and had no concerns about their relatives safety.

The service had sufficient staffing levels in place to provide support people required. We saw staff showed concern for people’s wellbeing and responded quickly when people required their help.

The service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Medication procedures observed protected people from unsafe management of their medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed and when needed and appropriate records had been completed.

We saw there was an emphasis on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people who lived at the home. People told us staff treated them as individuals and delivered person centred care. Care plans seen confirmed the service promoted people’s independence and involved them in decision making about their care.

We looked around the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

The design of the building and facilities provided were appropriate for the care and support provided.

The service had safe infection control procedures in place and staff had received infection control training. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection.

People had been supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service in a caring and professional manner. Care plans were organised and had identified care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received.

People told us they were happy with the varie

The inspection visit took place on 16 June 2015 and was unannounced.

The Yachtsman Rest Home is registered to provide personal care for up to 32 people. They support mainly older people or people living with dementia. Accommodation is on three floors with a passenger lift for access between the floors. There are two lounges, dining rooms and a smaller quiet lounge plus a large garden for people to enjoy. The home is situated close to shops, buses, the beach and the local facilities of Fleetwood. At the time of the inspection visit there were 27 people living at the home.

There was not a registered manager in place at the time of our visit. The registered manager had recently left at the end of May 2015. The provider had a manager currently on an induction period. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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. A condition of The Yachtsman registration was they had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in place.

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. A condition of The Yachtsman registration was they had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in place.

At the last inspection on 20 May 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

People who lived at the home, relatives and friends told us they felt safe and secure with staff to support them. We found people’s care and support needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Care records we looked at contained details of people’s preferences, interests, likes and dislikes.

We observed staff interaction with people during our inspection visit, spoke with staff, people who lived at the home and relatives. We found staffing levels and the skills mix of staff were sufficient to meet the needs of people and keep them safe. The recruitment of staff had been undertaken through a thorough process. We found all checks that were required had been completed prior to staff commencing work. This was confirmed by talking with staff members.

We observed medication being dispensed and administered in a safe manner. The staff member took their time and concentrated on one person at a time to minimise risks associated with this process.

The cooks and staff members we spoke with understood the importance for people to be encouraged to eat their meals and take regular drinks to keep them hydrated. We observed during the day drinks, fresh fruit and biscuits were offered in between meals. Comments from people were positive about the quality of meals at the service. One person who lived at the home said, “The food is very good.”

People who lived at the home were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships with their friends and family members. Relatives and visitors we spoke with told us they were always made welcome and offered a snack, meal and drinks.

The care plans we looked at were centred on people’s personal needs and wishes. Daily events that were important to people were detailed, so that staff could provide care to meet their needs and wishes. The staff were involved in lots of activities and were seen to encourage people to get involved in group games. One staff member said, “We recently visited a local museum and took [person] to see a boat on display which he had made himself.”

We found there were a range of audits and systems put in place by the provider. These were put in place to monitor the quality of service provided. Audits were taking place approximately every six weeks. The providers carried out these audits and looked at for example the environment, staff training and care plans of people who lived at the home.

.

On the day of our visit we spoke with the owners, registered manager, deputy manager, staff, relatives and residents. They helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people living at the home, staff caring for them, relatives and by looking at records. We also had responses from external agencies including social services .This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced living at The Yachtsman.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to make sure management and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helps the home to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required. Applications had been made to the local council for residents. The manager said, “We are in the process of submitting applications for all residents to the council.”

From our observations during the day, we found people were treated with respect and dignity by staff. People living at the home and relatives we spoke with were positive about the care and support they received. Comments from residents and relatives included, “I come here most days to visit my relative and leave feeling they are so well cared for and safe.” Also, “I have lived here for a while and cannot fault the staff and manager for the care they give me. I feel safe and secure that’s how they make me feel.”

Staff recruitment was safe with all required checks undertaken prior to people starting to work at the home. This meant suitable staff were employed to provide the care and support people required.

Is the service effective?

Relatives we spoke with said they were able to see people in private and visiting times were flexible. “We come here quite a lot to see our relative and are always made welcome by the manager and staff.”

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their plans of care where possible. Relatives views were also sought to ensure people received the right care to meet their needs. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People’s assessed needs were reflected in their care records. Individual records were person centred, comprehensive and informative in identifying personal preferences and how they liked their care and support provided to them.

Is the service caring?

We spent part of the day in the lounge and dining areas at lunchtime and breakfast observing staff interaction with residents. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One resident we spoke with said, “I would not want to be anywhere else.”

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with there wishes. Residents personal histories had been developed by the manager and staff.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the home regularly. We saw evidence of daily activities planned and advertised around the home. One resident said, “We had a barbeque at the weekend it was very enjoyable.”

Reviews of people’s care took place monthly and involved family members where possible. We saw evidence of where people’s needs changed, their plans would be updated and reviewed promptly.

Is the service well-led?

There were a range of audits and systems put in place in by the manager and owners to monitor the quality of the service being provided.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had an understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times