Auburn Mere

This unannounced inspection took place on 18 December 2018.

There was 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good overall. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. We have written this inspection report in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to receive a safe service. Staff demonstrated how they protected people from potential abuse and harm. Risk assessments were in place and had been regularly reviewed so staff were aware of what measures were in place to reduce risks to people. There were enough staff with the correct skills and experience to ensure that people's needs were met in a timely way.

Recruitment checks were completed to ensure staff were suitable to work at Auburn Mere. People received their medicines as prescribed, and at regular intervals. Accidents and incidents were monitored so that any learning could be implemented to help reduce the risk of a reoccurrence.

People continued to receive an effective service. Staff received training and support which gave them the skills and knowledge they required to provide people with care and support that was effective. People were supported to have maximum choice and staff obtained their consent before supporting them.

Staff supported people to eat and drink a sufficiently balanced diet to maintain their health and wellbeing. People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals and services when required.

People continued to receive care and support from staff who were kind and caring. Staff were patient and compassionate when supporting people and provided reassurance when required. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. They knew people well and supported people to be as independent as possible. People's families and visitors were welcomed at all times.

People continued to receive a service that was responsive to their needs. People and their families were involved in the development, planning and review of their care and support. Support plans were personalised and included information about people's life histories and what was important to them.

People were supported to participate in various activities both in the home and also in the community. People and their families knew how to raise a concern and were confident if they needed to complain it would be dealt with appropriately.

The service continued to be well-led, by the registered manager who was open, transparent and provided hands-on leadership. People were at the heart of the service and staff were motivated to provide them with a good quality service. There was a range of quality assurance systems in place which monitored all aspects of the service for quality. Actions were in place to address any shortfalls identified. The provider sought the views of people, their relatives and staff and these views were taken into account to help drive improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found