We inspected Windy Ridge Care Home on 22 & 23 June 2016. This was an unannounced inspection.

Windy Ridge Care Home is a care home for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. The home is registered to provide nursing care, personal care and accommodation for up to 21 people. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people living at Windy Ridge. The home is set in well maintained gardens and consists of a main house with a large conservatory which acts as a lounge and dining room and is decorated to meet the needs of people with dementia.

The service had 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.

People told us they felt safe. Individualised risks were assessed and there was effective maintenance of the premises. Staff had good knowledge of medicines and there were systems in place to manage, record and administer medicines safely.

People were protected from possible harm. Staff were knowledgeable about the home’s safeguarding processes and procedures and who to contact if they had any concerns. Staff told us they felt they would be taken seriously and concerns would be acted upon.

The provider operated effective recruitment and retention processes. Relevant checks were carried out before staff were employed. There were sufficient staff deployed to provide person centred care and keep people safe. Staff were supported in their roles with on-going training, supervision and appraisals.

People living at the home, their visitors and health care professionals were positive about the management of the home. There was an open culture and a clear management structure, with systems to monitor the quality of care and deliver improvements. Staff told us they felt supported and were involved in the development of the home.

There was a strong focus on personalised care, in line with people’s needs and preferences. Staff interacted positively with people and were caring and kind and respected their dignity. The home was welcoming and thought had been given to the environment to help people with dementia with orientation around the home.

People were supported to maintain their health and specialist medical advice and treatment was sought promptly when required. A range of health professionals were involved in people’s care including GPs, speech and language therapists and opticians.

Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence, to make decisions and to have as much control over their lives as possible. The staff had good natured encounters with people, seemed to know them well, and had time to sit and chat with them. There was a range of activities on offer throughout the week. Most activities took place within the home, such as singing, physical games and quiz games.

People were offered a varied diet, prepared in a way that met their specific needs. Important information, such as their likes and dislikes and allergies, was known by staff. Staff patiently assisted and encouraged people to eat if they needed help.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager understood this legislation and had submitted DoLS applications for people living at the home where required. Staff were aware of their responsibilities under this legislation and under the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Quality assurance systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care and drive improvements. Records were regularly reviewed. Minor issues raised with records were addressed with staff by the registered manager at the time.

We last inspected the home in November 2013 when we found no con

The manager of Windy Ridge Care Home assisted us throughout this inspection. We spoke with five people who lived at the home, however only one person was able to tell us about their experiences of the home. The other people were not able to give much feedback owing to a diagnosis of dementia. We saw also spoke with three visiting relatives and with two members of staff.

We found that people’s consent about how they were cared for and supported was always sought concerning areas of their life where they could make decisions. Where people did not have the capacity to make decisions, best interest decisions were made on their behalf. Relatives or significant others were involved in ‘best interest’ decisions made on behalf of people.

People’s needs had been assessed and care plans developed from the assessment process. Care plans were up to date, and reflected the needs of the people whose care we looked at.

The home had robust recruitment procedures in place to make sure that suitable people were employed to work at the home.

The home had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.

Records we looked at were easily accessible, up to date and accurate.

We found that there were arrangements in place to ensure that people using the service were respected and involved in decisions about their care and as well as the methods of delivery of the service. These included the methods in place for receiving referrals for the service delivery in terms of content, frequency, preferences, staff status and review process in addition to liaison with their relatives.

We were presented with evidence of the use of care plans and staff rota to indicate how and when the care was delivered to people. We spoke to six people using services and some of them and their relatives confirmed their awareness of having care plans and receiving the care within the care plan.

All the staff we spoke with told us that they had received or scheduled for training in recognising and reporting abuse. They knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and what to do if they had any concerns about a person's safety or welfare.

We reviewed six staff files and these evidenced records of supervision session, including where additional training was required.

All of the people told us they were happy with the quality of the service they received from the agency. They stated that their care was regularly reviewed and they knew how to raise concerns if needed and were responded to readily. Comments received on this question included "Quite good", "No criticism", and "Very good."