You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 April 2016

The inspection took place on 4 and 5 February and was unannounced.

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 45 older people, who may have dementia. Forty-four people were living at the home at the time of our inspection.

People were at the heart of the service. The provider’s philosophy, vision and values were understood and shared across the staff team. People were supported to maintain their purpose and pleasure in life. People’s right to lead a fulfilling life was enshrined in a charter of rights, which was displayed in the entrance to the home.

People and relatives were delighted with the care and support provided by the staff, which exceeded their expectations. Staff took time to understand people’s life stories and supported and encouraged people to celebrate important personal and national events. People were supported to retain an active presence in the local community and to maintain their personal interests and hobbies.

The provider employed a team of exercise and activity co-ordinators who were dedicated to supporting people to make the most of each day. The group activity sessions were effective and the positive impact on people’s moods was visible; people continued to smile and sing after an exercise session ended.

People planned their own care, with the support of their relatives and staff, to ensure their care plans matched their individual needs, abilities and preferences, from their personal perspective. Care staff showed insight and understanding in caring for people, because they understood people’s individual motivations and responses.

People who lived at the home, their relatives and other health professionals were encouraged to share their opinions in a format that was appropriate to their needs, to make sure their views drove planned improvements. The provider had researched and reflected on how international exemplar services provided care and planned to refurbish the home in accordance with current best practice principles.

The provider was innovative and creative and constantly strived to improve the quality of people’s lives, by working in partnership with experts in the field of dementia care. Planned improvements were focused on improving people’s quality of life.

All the staff were involved in monitoring the quality of the service, which included regular checks of people’s care plans, medicines administration and staff’s practice. Accidents, incidents, falls and complaints were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence. The provider shared their learning with all the homes in the group.

The home was divided into three ‘households’, each with their own lounges and dining rooms. Each household was individually supported by a care co-ordinator and three care staff. Care co-ordinators were part of the duty management system, which meant there was a named manager available to respond to issues and to support staff, seven days a week.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s physical and social needs. The registered manager checked staff’s suitability to deliver personal care during the recruitment process. The premises and equipment were regularly checked to ensure risks to people’s safety were minimised. People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm and were encouraged and supported to raise any concerns. Staff understood the risks to people’s individual health and wellbeing and they were clearly recorded in their care plans.

Staff were attentive to people’s appetites, m

Inspection areas



Updated 16 April 2016

The service was safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s individual health and wellbeing were identified and care was planned to minimise the risks. The registered manager checked staff’s suitability for their role before they started working at the home. Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely.



Updated 16 April 2016

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had relevant training and skills. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager understood their legal obligations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s nutritional and specialist dietary needs were taken into account in menu planning and choices. People were referred to healthcare services when their health needs changed.



Updated 16 April 2016

The service was caring. Care staff were kind and compassionate towards people and encouraged them to take pride in their lifetime’s achievements. People were encouraged and supported to live with meaning and purpose every day. Care staff respected people’s individuality and encouraged them to maintain their independence in accordance with their abilities.



Updated 16 April 2016

The service was very responsive. People planned their own care with support from relatives and staff. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes were understood by the staff from the person’s point of view. People were actively encouraged to engage with the local community, to maintain relationships that were important to them and to participate in new experiences. People’s views were actively and regularly sought, listened to and used to drive improvement in the service. Complaints and concerns were listened to, taken seriously and responded to promptly.



Updated 16 April 2016

The service was very well led. The provider’s philosophy, vision and values were shared by all the staff, which resulted in a culture that valued people’s individual experiences and abilities. The provider worked with other organisations and implemented innovative technologies to improve people’s experience and the quality of the service. People, their relatives and healthcare professionals were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service, to ensure planned improvements focused on people’s experiences.