Wren Park is registered to provide accommodation for up to 31 people who require nursing or personal care. Accommodation is over two floors in an extended adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service.

At our last inspection 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 ongoing 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.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and they felt confident in how to report these types of concerns.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. Effective infection control measures were in place to protect people.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure that they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were also supported with regular supervisions.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was a variety of drinks and snacks available throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including community nurses and doctors to make sure that they received additional healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. Care plans were written in a person-centred way and were responsive to people’s needs. People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.

The premises had been adapted to be accessible for people.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 01 October 2015.

After that inspection we received concerns in relation to the application of the safeguarding procedure in the service and the management of people’s medicines. We had also been notified that the registered manager was no longer managing the service. As a result we undertook a focused inspection to look into those concerns.

This report only covers our findings in relation to those topics. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Wren Park Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Wren Park Care Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 31 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 31 people living at the home.

The service does not have a registered manager. However, a new manager has recently been appointed who has commenced the process to register with the Commission. 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.

Prior to this inspection we had received information of concern regarding the safeguarding procedure in the service and the management of people’s medicines. We were told that there had been a delay in referring a safeguarding concern to the local authority and that a person had not received their medicines as prescribed as insufficient stock had been maintained. During this inspection we found that the provider had taken appropriate action to address the concerns raised.

People felt safe living at the service. Staff were knowledgeable with regards to safeguarding people and aware of the potential signs of abuse. All staff were comfortable in raising concerns and understood their responsibilities. There were effective safeguarding procedures in place and staff had received safeguarding training.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicine records were comprehensive and there were effective systems in place for the safe storage and management of medicine. Regular audits were completed.

A new manager was in post at the service who had begun the process of assessing the quality of the service and identifying potential changes. People and staff knew who the manager was and found them approachable.

The service had a positive, open culture. Staff were aware of their role and responsibilities and were clear on the lines of accountability at the service. Regular team meetings were held and staff felt involved in decision making.

People and their relatives were asked for their feedback on the service and comments were encouraged. Effective quality monitoring systems and processes were used to drive improvements in the service and identify where action needed to be taken.

This inspection took place on 1 October 2015 and it was unannounced. This was the first inspection conducted at the home since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in July 2014. The home was run by another provider prior to this date.

The service provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 31 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post at the home. 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 felt safe in the home and staff understood their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding people.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and positive relationships had been formed. Detailed care plans were in place, and had been regularly reviewed, to reflect people’s preferences and included personalised risk assessments.

There were a range of activities in which people were encouraged to participate in to maintain their interests.

People had been involved in planning their care and deciding in which way their care was provided.

People were supported to make choices in relation to their food and drink and a balanced, nutritious menu was offered.

Staff were patient, kind and caring. They treated people with respected and promoted maintaining people’s dignity.

The management team were approachable and staff felt supported in their roles. People and staff knew who to raise concerns with and there was an open culture.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems.