This inspection took place on 24 January 2017 and was unannounced.

Wimborne is registered to provided accommodation and support for up to 52 people. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people living at the home, some of whom live with dementia. Accommodation is all on one level with four communal areas, 47 single rooms and 5 double rooms.

At this inspection a registered manager was 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.

Following our last inspection in September 2015 requirement notices were issued for breaches in Regulations 9, 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The registered person had not ensured person centred care, they had not ensured that all identified risks associated with people's care had been appropriately assessed and plans developed to mitigate such risks. Service user records were not always up to date and accurate. At this inspection improvements had been made and these were no longer a breach.

People were safeguarded from harm as the provider had systems in place to prevent, recognise and report any suspected signs of abuse. Medicines were managed safely and risks associated with people’s needs had been assessed with plans developed to mitigate such risks. People could be confident they were being cared for by staff appropriate to do so because the provider operated safe recruitment processes and ensured there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs.

Staff knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied that knowledge appropriately. They understood the importance of obtaining people's consent when supporting them with their daily living needs. Staff received training and support which enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Staff monitored people's health and well-being and ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when required.

People experienced caring relationships with the staff that provided good interaction by taking the

time to listen and understand what people needed. People's care was planned in a personalised way and delivered by staff that knew them well. Their support needs were monitored and reviewed to ensure that care was provided in the way that they needed.

A clear complaints policy was in place and people knew how to use this if they needed to. The registered manager responded appropriately to complaints and used committee meetings to engage and listen to people.

Records had improved and systems were in place to monitor the service and drive improvement. The registered manager was open and staff felt supported in their roles.

At the time of the inspection the home accommodated 39 people and 1 person was staying at the home for respite. We spoke with three people who lived at the home. We also spoke with three members of staff, a healthcare professional who was visiting the home during our inspection and the general manager.

We set out to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

People's health and care needs were assessed before they moved into the home.

We found that there were enough experienced staff to meet people's needs. On the day of the inspection there were four care staff, ancillary staff and the manager on duty.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) - although no applications had needed to be made. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of what constituted abuse and the different avenues available to them to report concerns. The training matrix demonstrated that all staff had received safeguarding training.

Is the service effective?

People who lived at Wimborne expressed their satisfaction about living at the home. One person told us "I am happy with everything that Wimborne has to offer me”, another person said "staff are very attentive to my needs, I wouldn't change a thing".

All people had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. We looked at four individual care plans which we found to be detailed and comprehensive and clearly identified people's needs.

Is the service caring?

We made observations throughout the visit and saw people being offered choices as to what they wanted to eat or what activities they wanted to take part in during the day. For example we saw staff encouraging people to participate in singing and dancing with them.

Staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. They were aware of people's needs and the preferences of people they cared for in how people wanted care to be delivered. Our observations showed that people were addressed by staff in a respectful manner.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with told us they were listened to and staff respected their wishes.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. We saw a record was maintained of any complaints made along with a record of any investigation and the findings as well as a record of the outcome of the complaint investigation.

Is the service well led?

There was a clear management structure with good lines of communication and accountability. Staff spoken with were clear about reporting arrangements.

All staff received regular supervision meetings. The manager told us that staff performance issues were addressed through these meetings and additional staff training was identified as necessary.

We saw that regular audits of the service were completed by the provider which ensured people who used the service benefit from a service that monitored the quality of care that people received.

There was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. The current manager was in the process of registration with the Commission.

We spoke with four people during the inspection. We also spoke to two relatives of people who live at the home. We also spoke to two staff and to the home’s manager. We spoke to a health and social care professional who has had contact with people at the home.

During the early evening meal time we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool to help us see what people's experiences at mealtimes were. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time and whether they have positive experiences. This includes looking at the support that is given to them by the staff. We saw people had positive experiences. The mealtime was well organised. People were offered choices from a wide range of foods.

People said they were satisfied with the standard of care provided by the home. A relative told us, “They have worked miracles with my relative.” This relative also said they visited the home at different times of the day on a regular basis and did not have any concerns about the care of people.

The home was found to be clean and free from any odours.

Recruitment checks were carried out before any new staff started work.

The home sought the views of people at the home, and, of their relatives regarding the standard of service provided. There were comprehensive audits and checks of the home’s operation and performance.

People using the service spoke positively about the care provided at the home. They told us that members of staff were caring and kind. People we spoke with told us that there were enough staff at the home. Staff working at the home told us they were well supported and trained to meet the needs of people.

People told us they are happy living at the home. They receive the care and support thy need in a way they prefer because staff listen to their wishes and involve them in care planning processes. They commented that the home arranges for them to see health care professionals such as General Practitioners (GP’s) and Community Nurses when they need to. Health care professionals commented that staff refer people to them in a timely manner to ensure their health care needs are met.

People told us they feel safe at the home because they believe staff have the skills and knowledge to provide care and support for them and there are processes in place at the home to protect their safety.

People confirmed that they are able to influence the running of the home in a variety of methods that include formal meetings with staff, general discussions, care plan reviews, and the use of a ‘wish tree’.

They told us they enjoy the meals provided at the home. There is always a choice of menu to be made at meal times; with there always being something on the menu they like and they can chose where to take their meals. They told us there are plenty of snacks and drinks available though out the day. For people at risk of ill health due to poor nutritional intake we observed relevant care plans were being followed with accurate monitoring of the person’s dietary and fluid intake was being completed.

There are a number of communal areas for people to use. People expressed that they were happy with the environment in which they live, including their bedrooms and the gardens.

People told us that if they have any problems or concerns they can talk to staff about it and the problem will always be resolved. Relatives of people using the service also told us that any concerns raised with the home would be resolved promptly.

This inspection took place on 3 and 4 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Wimborne is a care home that does not provide nursing. It provides support to up to 52 older people, some of whom are living with dementia.

A registered manager was 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.

Risk associated with people’s care were not always appropriately assessed and plans had not always been developed to ensure that staff met people’s needs consistently and reduced such risks.

People confirmed they felt safe and that staff involved them in making decisions. Whilst staff knew people well, care plans were not always personalised, accurate and reflective of people’s needs and preferences.

Observations demonstrated people’s consent was sought before staff provided care. Staff and the registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The service had submitted applications for DoLS for some people living in the home to the supervisory body.

People described staff as kind and caring. Staff treated people with respect and recognised the importance of promoting independence, dignity and privacy.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding people at risk. They were confident any concerns raised would be acted upon by management and knew what action to take if they were not. Medicines were managed safely.

Recruitment and selection checks were carried out and the provider ensured there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff received an induction programme when they first started work which helped them to understand their roles and responsibilities. They felt supported through supervision, appraisal and training.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and these were managed in line with the provider’s policy. Systems were in place to gather people’s views and assess and monitor the quality of the service. These were not always fully effective and we have made a recommendation about this.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.