Tudor Manor is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Tudor Manor is a care home without nursing, which can accommodate up to 22 people. At the time of our inspection 18 people were using the service and these were older people requiring personal care.

At our last inspection on 14 December 2015 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

The inspection visit took place on 12 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection took place partly in response to some concerns raised with us around staffing issues and that people were not receiving appropriate support. During the inspection we found no evidence that people were not being adequately cared for and the recruitment of staff was in process.

The registered manager had left their post during the week of the inspection and therefore they were not present on the day. 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. The quality director had taken on the role of acting manager in the period leading up to a new registered manager being employed.

People continued to receive care that made them feel safe and they received medicine as required. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and harm. Risks to people were assessed and guidance about how to manage these was available for staff to refer to/follow.

People continued to receive effective support from staff with a sufficient level of skills and knowledge to meet their specific needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported their choices. People were assisted to access appropriate healthcare support and received an adequate diet.

The care people received was provided with compassion and dignity. People were supported to express their views. Staff supported people to have choices and independence, wherever possible. People’s diverse needs were recognised and staff enabled people to access activities should they so wish.

The provider had effective systems in place to regularly review people’s care provision, with their involvement. People’s care was personalised and care plans contained information about the person, their needs, choices and preferences. Care staff knew people’s needs and respected them. People were able to speak openly with staff and tell them if they were unhappy or wanted to make a complaint.

The service continued to be well-led, including making detailed checks and monitoring of the quality of the service. People and staff were positive about the leadership skills of the management team. Arrangements were in place to obtain views on the service from people, staff and their relatives.

This inspection took place on 14 and 16 December 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in May 2013 the service was meeting the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Tudor Manor provides accommodation for up to 22 older people who require personal care. On the day of our inspection there were 22 people living there.

There was a registered manager in post and she was present during our inspection. 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 were positive about the care they received and they all told us they felt safe. People told us that staff knew them well and supported them in their preferred way. We saw that staff had developed a good rapport with people who used the service. People commented on the homely atmosphere within the home.

The staff had a clear awareness and understanding of potential abuse and knew how to protect people from the risk of harm. There was enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited in a safe way which ensured they were of a good character to work with people who used the service.

Risk assessments and care plans had been developed with the involvement of people. Staff had the relevant information on how to minimise identified risks to ensure people were supported in a safe way. People had equipment in place when this was needed, so that staff could assist them safely.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff knew about people’s individual capacity to make decisions and supported people to make their own decisions.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and staff promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. People were supported to maintain good health; we saw that staff alerted health care professionals if they had any concerns about their health. People knew how to make a complaint and were confident that their complaint would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

People described the management team of the home as approachable and they said they felt the service was well managed. Arrangements were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, so that actions could be put in place to drive improvement. The management of the service was open and transparent.

On the day of our visit there were 22 people resident at the home. We spoke with seven people, one relative, one friend, three care staff, the cook, the manager and the owner.

People were very positive about the care and support being provided. One person said, “The staff are very good. Nothing is too much trouble.”

People told us that there was a good choice of food and we saw there were procedures in place to monitor the intake of food and fluids to lessen the risks associated with inadequate nutrition and hydration.

We found that appropriate arrangements had been made to manage the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Recruitment and selection processes were in place to ensure that suitable staff were employed to look after people. People we spoke with were very complimentary about staff. One person said, “They (staff) go out of their way to help you.”

The provider had improved the quality monitoring systems that were now better designed to assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

There were 22 people who lived at the home at the time of our inspection. Throughout the day we spoke with six people who lived at the home, two visitors, two care workers, the provider and a district nurse.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because not all the people who lived there were able to tell us their experiences. We spent time observing how staff supported people. We looked at two care records and also spoke with people, visitors and staff to gain an understanding of how they supported people who lived there.

Many of the people we spoke with indicated that they were happy living at the home, although two people commented that they would like to do have more trips out. We saw different people passing their day by reading, watching the television, doing crossword puzzles or taking part in the group activities which were run by the staff.

People told us they were treated well by the staff and we saw that they were safe in their environment. We found that staff knew how to ensure that people were safe from abuse and neglect.

We found that staff received the training they needed to support the people they cared for.

We saw that the systems in place to monitor the service that people received required improvements, as did the way care was planned for and assessed.