Thornbury Villa provides care and accommodation for up to 14 older people some who are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 14 people living in the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good overall.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

People remained safe at the service. People received their medicines as prescribed. People and staff told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were completed to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. One person said; “I do indeed feel safe and well looked after here.”

People continued to receive care from staff who had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. Staff were well trained and competent. People were 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. People's healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs.

People all agreed and said the staff were very caring. We observed staff being patient and kind. There was a calm and cheerful atmosphere in the service. People's privacy was respected. People where possible, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support people received.

The service remained responsive to people's individual needs. Care and support was personalised for individuals which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to.

People were assisted to take part in a wide range of activities according to their individual interests. Trips out were also planned for people.

The service continued to be well led. Staff told us the registered manager, who was also the registered provider, was very approachable. The registered manager was supported by a manager who oversaw the care of the service. The registered manager sought people's views to make sure people were at the heart of any changes within the home. The registered manager had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We met and spoke to all 13 people who used services, spoke in detail to eight relatives and met another six who were visiting the home for a summer BBQ. We spoke to one visiting professional, talked with the staff on duty and checked the provider's records. One person using the service said, “Happy with everything!”

We saw people’s privacy and dignity being respected at all times. We saw and heard staff speak to people in a way that demonstrated a good understanding by staff of people’s choices and preferences. One person said, “I can stay in my room or go into the lounge, it’s my choice”. The visiting professional said, “They (the staff) have been great with one person who has been very unwell recently”.

Staff we spoke with were clear about the actions they would take should they have any concerns about people's welfare.

We looked at care records for three people. We spoke to staff about the care given, looked at records relating to them, met with them and their relatives and observed staff working with them.

We saw that people's care records described their needs and how those needs were met. We saw that people's mental capacity had been taken into consideration when needed to determine whether they were able to make particular decisions about their lives.

The staff working in the home confirmed they were fully supported with regular training and supervisions. One staff member said, “The owners are always available to discuss things”.

We found all records kept securely and were regularly updated and audited.

We met all 14 people who used services, two relatives, talked with the staff on duty and checked the provider's records. We spoke to the relatives of one person who used the service, they said: “Couldn’t have a better staff team”. We looked at surveys sent out and returned to the home for further information.

We saw people living in the home being involved in many decisions about how the home was run, including being involved in interviewing new staff and being asked about staff’s performance for the completion of their appraisals.

We saw people's privacy and dignity were respected and staff were helpful. Comments from people who lived in the care home included "Top Marks”. One survey returned by a professional said “Very caring (home), staff always happy to help and keep me informed”.

We saw and heard staff speak to people in a way that demonstrated a good understanding of people's choices and preferences. We looked in detail at the care three people received. We spoke to staff about the care given, looked at records related to them, met with them, and observed staff working with them. We saw that the staff had a good understanding of people's individual needs and that they were kind and respectful. We observed that staff took time to work at people’s own pace.

We observed that people were supported to make decisions about their lives and be as independent as possible. We saw that people's care records described their needs and how those needs were met.

Thornbury Villa provides care and accommodation for up to 14 older people some who are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 14 people living in the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good overall.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

People remained safe at the service. People received their medicines as prescribed. People and staff told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were completed to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. One person said; “I do indeed feel safe and well looked after here.”

People continued to receive care from staff who had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. Staff were well trained and competent. People were 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. People's healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs.

People all agreed and said the staff were very caring. We observed staff being patient and kind. There was a calm and cheerful atmosphere in the service. People's privacy was respected. People where possible, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support people received.

The service remained responsive to people's individual needs. Care and support was personalised for individuals which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to.

People were assisted to take part in a wide range of activities according to their individual interests. Trips out were also planned for people.

The service continued to be well led. Staff told us the registered manager, who was also the registered provider, was very approachable. The registered manager was supported by a manager who oversaw the care of the service. The registered manager sought people's views to make sure people were at the heart of any changes within the home. The registered manager had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.