Woodville House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 23 older people. Twenty people were living at the home at the time of our inspection visit. At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good in all five questions and Good overall.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because staff were trained in safeguarding. Staff understood their responsibilities to raise any concerns with the registered manager. The registered manager made sure there were enough suitably skilled, qualified and experienced staff to support people safely and effectively. Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely.

People and their families were included in planning how they were cared for and supported. People’s individual risks to their health and wellbeing were assessed and their care was planned to minimise the risks. The provider and registered manager regularly checked the premises, essential supplies and equipment were well maintained and safe for people to use.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet that met their preferences and were referred to healthcare professionals when their health needs changed.

People, relatives and staff felt well cared for. Staff understood people’s diverse needs and interests and were actively involved in supporting them to enjoy their lives according to the preferences. Staff were happy working at the home because they felt supported in their work and felt the registered manager was genuinely interested in their welfare.

The manager and staff understood people’s individual needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. People were supported and encouraged to maintain their interests and to socialise in the home and in the local community. Staff respected people’s right to privacy and supported people to maintain their dignity.

People and relatives knew the registered manager well and had no complaints about the service. The registered manager and provider demonstrated the values and aims of the service, which ensured care was centred on the individual’s needs.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We inspected this service on 23September 2015. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in September 2013, the service was meeting the regulations.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 15 older people who may be living with dementia. On the day of our inspection, 11 people lived at the home.

The provider’s policies and procedures to minimise risks to people’s safety were understood by staff. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm and were supported to raise any concerns. The registered manager assessed risks to people’s health and welfare and people’s care plans minimised the identified risks.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s physical and social needs. The registered manager checked staff’s suitability to provide care during the recruitment process.

The premises were maintained and regularly checked to ensure risks to people’s safety were minimised. The provider’s medicines policy included training staff and checking that people received their medicines as prescribed, to ensure people’s medicines were administered safely.

People received care from staff who had the skills, experience to meet their needs effectively. Staff understood people’s needs and abilities because they read the care plans and shadowed experienced staff until they knew people well. Staff were supported and encouraged to reflect on their practice and to develop their skills and knowledge, which improved people’s experience of care.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was subject to a DoLS at the time of our inspection. The manager had checked that the care and support people received did not amount to a deprivation of their liberty. For people with complex needs, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interests.

Risks to people’s nutrition were minimised because staff knew about people’s individual dietary needs and preferences. People were offered a choice of foods and were supported to eat and drink according to their needs.

Staff were attentive to people’s moods and behaviours and understood how to minimise their anxiety. People were encouraged and supported to engage in activities and events that gave them an opportunity to socialise, which lifted their mood. Staff ensured people obtained advice and support from other health professionals to maintain and improve their health or when their needs changed.

People and their relatives were involved in planning and agreeing how they were cared for and supported. Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs, abilities and preferences and care plans were regularly reviewed.

People and relatives told us care staff were kind and respected their privacy and dignity. People were confident any concerns would be listened to and action taken to resolve any issues.

The staff and management shared common values about the purpose of the service. People were supported and encouraged to live as independently as possible, according to their needs and abilities.

The provider’s quality monitoring system included regular checks of people’s care plans, medicine administration and staff’s practice. Accidents, incidents, falls and complaints were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence.

People who lived at the home were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service. The provider and manager took account of people’s opinions to make sure planned improvements focused on people’s experience.

We saw that care staff treated people with dignity and respect. The three people we spoke with all told us that staff were ‘very good’. A relative told us, “The staff are very kindly. They have a laugh and joke with us.”

The three care plans we looked at included an assessment of people’s needs and abilities. The care plans were personalised, because the manager had asked people about their hobbies, interests and preferences. One person told us their care plan was regularly reviewed and updated, and reflected their changing needs.

The provider checked that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people before they started working at the home. The three care staff we spoke understood and explained the signs of abuse. The care staff were clear about their responsibilities to report their concerns and were confident that the manager would take appropriate action.

Care staff told us they felt well supported by the senior and manager. They told us they had regular team meetings and one to one meetings when they needed them. We saw the manager kept a record of all their meetings with staff. A member of care staff told us, “You just have to get to know people, you just have to, to do a good job. They all have their own needs.”

The provider’s quality assurance system included asking people what they thought about the service. People told us the manager listened and made the changes they suggested. One person said, “I am very happy with the care.”