About the service:

• Benjamin Court is a Housing with Care scheme with 30 flats. Personal care and support is provided to tenants who live in their own flats under a tenancy agreement with a housing association.

• At the time of inspection, 28 people were receiving personal care and support at Benjamin Court.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website www.cqc.org.uk

People’s experience of using this service:

• People received individualised care from exceptionally caring and dedicated staff

• Staff took time to really get to know people and responded well to their care needs. Where possible, peoples preferences were met and they were encouraged to maintain their independence.

• Staff managed potential risks to people’s safety well

• Staff were recruited and trained effectively to ensure peoples health and wellbeing was promoted

• The service was well led and governance systems were robust.

• People and relatives praised the staff who they said were friendly, attentive and supportive.

Rating at last inspection:

• At the last inspection the service was rated Good. The report for this inspection was published on 2 July 2016.

Why we inspected:

• This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained Good.

Follow up:

• Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.

This inspection took place on 17 and 18 May and was unannounced.

Benjamin Court is a Housing with Care scheme with 30 flats. Care and support is provided to the tenants who live in their own flats under a tenancy agreement with a housing association.

The service is required to have 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 had no concerns about their safety and staff had completed training to enable them to recognise and respond to any suspicion of abuse. Staff also understood their obligation to report any issues promptly. The service followed safe recruitment processes so that only staff, who were suitable to work in care, were employed. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and guidance for staff about any identified risks for people was clear and appropriately detailed.

There were enough staff to ensure people’s safety and people’s support needs were met, in accordance with what had been agreed in their ‘care package’.

All staff who managed people’s medicines had completed appropriate training. The service also had clear policies and procedures in place for staff to follow, with regard to the recording and administration of medicines for people.

Staff received regular support and supervision and suitable training that was relevant to their role. Formal staff meetings were held and staff communicated regularly with each other and the management team.

CQC is required to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. The management team ensured the service operated in accordance with the MCA and DoLS procedures and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the MCA, DoLS, capacity and consent.

Where relevant to a person’s ‘care package’, staff worked in accordance with people’s care plans to ensure they had enough to eat and drink and people were supported to access other healthcare professionals as needed.

People were supported by caring staff and were involved in planning their own care. Staff were reliable and people knew the staff that supported them. People had thorough assessments completed before they started using the service and care packages were very person specific. The management team also regularly checked people’s care records to ensure they were kept up to date and accurately maintained.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident that their concerns would be listened to, taken seriously and that appropriate action would be taken. Staff had regular opportunities to discuss aspects of the service and make suggestions for improvements. People using the service also had regular tenants’ meetings to express their views.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and these were used to develop the service further. Staff and people using the service were also involved in making decisions on how the service ran.

Record keeping and management systems were in good order, with effective auditing and follow up procedures in place. Administrative support for the service was an effective and valuable asset.

An open and inclusive culture was demonstrated in the service, with visible and positive leadership evident.

People told us that they were involved in planning the care and support they received and we saw that people had signed their care plans to show they had been involved in the process and agreed the outcome. One person said that, "Staff are very kind." "They will do anything for you." "They come in every day to make sure I'm alright". Another person told us that, "I try to be independent but they give me help when I need it".

We looked at care plans with permission from the person, as they were owned and kept in their own home. We saw that the care plans set out how the person was to be supported. They included relevant risk assessment and risk reduction plans and these were all kept under review. There were arrangements in place to manage medicines on people's behalf as needed. The staff practice in respect of medicines was kept under review and records were regularly audited to ensure they were kept up to standard.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs. There was a mix of skill and experience amongst the staff seen on duty and all had a thorough understanding of the needs of the people requiring support.

People knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns and they said they were confident they would be listened to and their concerns acted on.

People were fully informed about the service before they made a decision about moving in. They were consulted about their care needs and were involved in drawing up and reviewing their care plans. People told us they remained in control of their care.

We were told that staff were polite and respectful to everyone using the service. People gave us examples of how staff promoted their privacy and dignity at all times.

Everyone we spoke with told us that they were happy living at Benjamin Court and said the care they received was very good. People who had support to take their medicines said that the system worked well and they were given their medicines at the times that suited them.

Although people lived in their own flats there were some social activities arranged in the communal lounges and people could also attend the day centre on the same site as Benjamin Court. People told us that they valued the opportunity to meet people and join in group activities, which gave them a sense of community.

People using the service told us they got along with people living and working at Benjamin Court. One person said, "I look forward to seeing them all, there is no-one who worries me."

People told us they had plenty of opportunities to tell the manager what they thought of Benjamin Court and a recent satisfaction survey had been carried out. Everyone we spoke with said they would have no difficulty talking to the manager if they had any complaints or concerns about their care. One person said, "He would definitely do something about it."

We spoke with six people living in Benjamin Court, all of whom were satisfied with the care and support they received. One person who had recently moved in told us, “They have made me feel so welcome.” Another person told us, “I couldn’t wish for better staff, they’re all fantastic.” A third person said, “You won’t find any better than here.”

People told us they participated in determining what care and support they required and options were discussed with them. They also said they were treated by staff with respect and consideration. We noted that correspondence from relatives was positive.

We reviewed care records for three people in detail and spoke with each person afterwards. We were able to establish that the records we saw corresponded with the care and support people received.

People who used 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. Staff we spoke with were confident about what to look out for and what action they would take if they had any concerns.

We were satisfied that the recruitment process undertaken meant that people were supported by staff who had been vetted and were suitable for their role.

The provider had arrangements in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.