Chantry Court provides personal care to people living in a purpose build ‘retirement village’. At the time of our inspection 22 people were receiving personal care from the service. The service was last inspected in March 2016, when we identified three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found the registered manager had taken action necessary following the last inspection and was meeting the requirements of the regulations.

This visit to the service took place on 18 May 2017 and was announced. We gave the registered manager short notice of the inspection the day before the visit. We wanted to make sure the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to support our inspection.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received good support to manage any medicines they needed assistance with. There was clear information in care plans about the support people needed and how it should be provided.

There were clear records to show people consented to the care and treatment they were receiving. If people did not have capacity to consent to their care, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act had been followed. People told us staff always obtained their consent before providing any care or doing anything in their apartment.

The registered manager had improved the quality assurance systems in place at the service and made sure they were used effectively. There was a clear record of any shortfalls the quality assurance process identified and the action that was being taken to address any issues.

People who use the service were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff. People told us they felt safe when care staff visited them. Comments from people included, “I feel safe with the carers. They do everything that’s in my care plan – no problem” and “Staff are very good and do all that I ask of them”.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. People said the staff generally arrived on time, and they would receive a call to inform them if there were any problems.

Staff received a thorough induction when they started working for the service and demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs.

People had opportunities to provide feedback about their care and there was a complaints procedure. People were confident any concerns would be listed to and addressed by the registered manager.

Chantry Court provides personal care to people living in their own home in a purpose built ‘retirement village’. At the time of our inspection 18 people were receiving personal care from the service. The service was last inspected in September 2013 and was found to be meeting all of the standards assessed.

This visit to the service took place on 21 March 2016 and was unannounced. We returned on 31 March 2016 to complete the inspection.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The systems in place to manage risks related to the administration of medicines were not completed consistently. Information on how to provide support to people with their medicines was not always available and staff had not received training in administering some medicines.

One person had fallen whilst receiving care. There was no record of any checks being completed to assess whether their head injury required further medical assessment or whether action was needed to minimise the risk of further injury.

The provider’s systems for gaining and recording consent for care and treatment were not always followed by staff. This meant it was not possible to say whether some people consented to the care and treatment they were receiving, or if they did not have capacity to consent to their care that requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed.

Some of the information in people’s care plans was vague and did not provide clear information about people needs and the care staff should provide. Despite some of the vague information recorded in the care plans, staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs. Staff were consistent in their descriptions of the care people needed and how some people’s needs varied.

The quality assurance systems in place at the service were not always used effectively. Audits had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection or effectively planned how improvements to the service were going to be made.

People who use the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff. People told us they felt safe when care staff visited them. The relative we spoke with said they were happy with the service provided and didn’t have any concerns about the safety of their family member.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. People said the care workers generally arrived on time, and they would receive a call to inform them if there were any problems.

Staff received a thorough induction when they started working for the service and demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs. However, training was needed for some staff to enable them to support one person with their medicines.

People had opportunities to provide feedback about their care and there was a complaints procedure. People were confident cony concerns would be listed to and addressed by the registered manager.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

During our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service, two relatives and two of the three staff employed to provide personal care.

Everyone we spoke with was complimentary of the staff and were satisfied with the care and support provided. Comments included: “staff are very kind and caring.” Another person explained they received personal care by a member of staff of the same gender, which they said “is important to me.”

We found the management of people's medicines was well organised and staff were

trained effectively to carry this out safely.

We found effective recruitment practices were in place to assure staff employed

were able to work with people safely and effectively. One person told us "I receive support from staff who know me very well. When a new member of staff is employed, they are always introduced to me first. Then they are shadowed until they know what is expected of them.”

Everyone we spoke with confirmed they were very happy with the service Chantry Court provided. Although one person told us they had not received their usual call as they had expected the previous day. They had chosen not report this to anyone. We informed the registered manager who told us they would investigate the matter.

The agency had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of its service and showed examples of improvements they had made to service delivery in response to comments received from people who used the service.

We carried out this inspection in response to receiving information of concern about peoples’ care and welfare, recording medication and staff training.

During our inspection we spoke with three people who use the service, three relatives and one of the two staff employed to provide personal care.

Everyone we spoke was complimentary of the staff and were satisfied with the care and support provided.

Comments included: “The small staff team are extremely caring and experienced and know me very well.” Another said “staff are very aware of the importance of privacy and dignity, they are polite and respectful. The staff know me and my routine, which I value.” A person told us “the staff are very flexible and ensure their visits fit in with me to meet my individual needs.”

A relative told us “the staff are well trained and are thorough in the support they provide. My relative has specialist equipment such as a hoist which they don’t need at the moment. Two staff help with transferring from one area to another.”

We were told the staff had received training but the registered manager was not able to show us any evidence of training staff had received.

A relative told us “I have plenty of opportunities to express my views regarding the care or treatment my relative receives.”

People told us they would speak to any of the staff if they had any concerns. In doing so, they were confident any concerns would be dealt with promptly and effectively.