This inspection took place on 11 and 13 October 2016 and was unannounced.

Woodley Grange is situated on the outskirts of Romsey. It is made up of an older building which has been refurbished and extended to provide residential care for up to 45 people. At the time of our inspection there were 41 people living at the home. The service specialises in caring for people with memory loss or living with dementia and provides respite care and day care. It does not provide nursing care. The service in arranged into three areas known as the Abbey, Broadlands and Mountbatten units. Each unit has their own communal sitting and dining area. Each room is for single occupancy with most having their own ensuite facilities. The rooms viewed were nicely personalised with people’s own possessions and were well equipped with profiling beds. The service has a hair salon and a large activities room which was being redecorated at the time of our inspection. The secure garden has been professionally designed to provide a safe, secure environment for people living with dementia.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Care plans and other records relating to people’s needs did not always contain sufficient information. This is important to support staff to deliver responsive care.

Staff understood the signs of abuse and neglect and demonstrated a commitment to ensuring people were protected from harm. Overall, staff had a good understanding of people’s risks and how to support them to maintain good health and stay safe

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked unsupervised.

Appropriate systems were in place for obtaining, storing and disposal of people’s medicines and improvements were underway to ensure that people received their medicines and topical creams as prescribed.

People received a choice of meals and were supported appropriately to eat and drink.

Staff were supported to carry out their roles and received an induction and on-going training and supervision.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing assistance. Where a person’s ability to consent to living within the home, or to the use of safety monitoring equipment was in doubt, a formal assessment of their capacity was usually undertaken as part of the care planning process. Relevant applications for a DoLS had either been authorised or were awaiting assessment by the local authority.

Staff had developed effective working relationships with a number of healthcare professionals to ensure that people received co-ordinated care, treatment and support.

People were cared for by kind and caring staff who respected their choices and were mindful of their privacy and dignity.

People told us they were able to express their views and to give feedback about the service. They were confident they could raise concerns or complaints and these would be dealt with.

People, their relatives and staff spoke positively about their leadership of the home. Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at the care records of three people who used the service. Each person had an assessment of their needs and a care plan, including risk assessments.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Care staff understood the meaning of safeguarding and told us that they were confident that any allegations of abuse would be correctly managed by the senior staff.

We found that there were enough suitably skilled, qualified and experienced staff to meet the needs of people that lived in the home. The head of care told us that the number of staff employed to work each shift was determined by the needs of the people that lived in the home and that this was assessed on a monthly basis.

People using the service told us they were happy living at the home. Staff listened to them and respected their views. They were able to make choices about their daily lives. They told us there was sufficient staff available to attend to their needs. Staff arranged for them to see health care professionals such as General Practitioners (GP's) and Community Nurses when they needed to.

People confirmed they received care and support they needed in a way they liked. This was because staff discussed the care and support they needed and wished for. They told us that the new activity coordinator was planning activities and social events that they would be interested in.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We used SOFI in this inspection because Woodley Grange provides a service for people with dementia and some of the people using the service were not able to provide direct feedback to us about their experiences.

During the visit we observed the way staff were providing care to people. We saw that staff communicated clearly with people before providing any care and sought their consent. People told us staff checked with them whether they were happy to receive care. People confirmed that staff respected their wishes and that they could refuse care if they wanted to.

People told us staff provided the care and support that they needed. Comments from people included, “The staff are very good” and “Staff provide all the care that I need”. People told us they had been involved in developing and reviewing their care plan and that staff provided the care detailed in their plan. During the observations we saw examples of good staff interactions with people who used the service, for example, responding to questions and providing support and reassurance to a person who was distressed.

People told us they were able to have drinks when they wanted and said the food was good. People said there was a choice of meals and they were able to request something different if they wanted to.