We inspected this service on 31 October 2016. The inspection was announced. This meant the registered provider and staff knew we would be visiting. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice of visit, because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location offices when we visited.

ExtraCare Charitable Trust Brunswick Gardens Village is a domiciliary care agency and is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, the service supported 82 people who lived in apartments or bungalows on the Brunswick Gardens Village site in Woodhouse, a suburb, south-east of Sheffield.

Brunswick Gardens Village is a complex comprising of 217 one and two bedroom apartments and bungalows. The village has a range of facilities including a restaurant, bar, fitness suite, greenhouse, IT suite, hairdressing and beauty salon, shop, laundry and library.

People living at Brunswick Gardens Village, including the people who received a domiciliary care service from ExtraCare Charitable Trust Brunswick Gardens Village, rent or own their flats or bungalows. ExtraCare Charitable Trust Brunswick Gardens Village has an office on site from where the domically care service is managed and provides care and support, to some of the tenants, on a prearranged basis at certain times during the day. ExtraCare Charitable Trust Brunswick Gardens Village were not responsible for the running or maintenance of people’s flats, communal areas or other facilities.

ExtraCare Charitable Trust Brunswick Gardens Village was last inspected in April 2014 when it was found to be compliant with the regulations in force at that time.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post and they had been the registered manager since October 2010. 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.

During this inspection, we found that people who used the service were kept safe by staff who were trained to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns. There were effective recruitment systems in place to ensure only people considered suitable were employed. Risks to people who used the service were identified, assessed and proactive steps taken to ensure care and support was provided in a safe way which minimised the risk of avoidable harm.

There were systems in place to ensure people who used the service received their prescribed medicines. Robust checks were completed to monitor the management of medicines and appropriate action taken where any shortfalls were identified.

We found that sufficient staff were employed to meet people’s needs. Staff received regular training, supervision and support to enable them to provide effective care and support. The registered provider employed a wellbeing advisor to support people who used the service to access healthcare services to promote and maintain their health and wellbeing.

Where necessary, staff supported people who used the service to make sure they ate and drank enough. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent and supported people who used the service to make decisions in line with statutory guidance.

People who used the service told us staff were kind, caring and treated them with dignity and respect. We observed that staff were caring and people were supported to make decisions and have choice and control over the care and support they received.

People’s needs were assessed and person centred care plans developed to guide staff on how best to meet people’s needs. The registered provider had a system to manage and respond

We considered all the evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People spoken with told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect and that they felt "safe".

All staff spoken with were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and the action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. We saw the service had a process in place to respond to and to record safeguarding concerns. We found the service had a copy of the local protocols and followed them to safeguard people from harm.

The service had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.

We found arrangements were in place to record people's financial transactions to safeguard people who used the service from financial abuse.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their care plans.

Is the service caring?

During the inspection we observed staff giving care and assistance to people in the communal areas. They were respectful and treated people in a caring and supportive way. We spoke with three members of staff who were able to describe how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity whilst providing personal care support. They also told how they promoted choice and independence. One staff member commented: “I always check the curtains are closed and the door is closed before supporting someone to get dressed”.

People spoken with were satisfied with the quality of care they had received and made positive comments about the staff. Their comments included: “absolutely wonderful staff, if you want anything they are there”, “very nice, very friendly staff, they always ask you want you want”, “there are always two members of staff supporting me to make sure I don’t fall”, “the staff are very efficient, very caring and very good”, “you can have a good chat with the staff” and “we are looked after really well”.

People’s personal preferences and interests were recorded in care plans and support was being provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

We saw the service promoted people’s wellbeing by taking account of their needs including daytime activities.

Relatives spoken with were satisfied with the quality of care their family member had received. One relative commented: “the staff are very good and I feel they [family member] are living in a safe place”.

Is the service responsive?

We found people had access to an emergency pull cord in different areas of their apartments. Many of the people spoken with also wore a pendant to call for assistance. People told us staff responded promptly to their calls during the day or at night. One person commented: “I only have to wait about five minutes for them [the staff] to come”. We also saw in people’s care records that their pendants and emergencies call cords were regularly checked to ensure they were working.

A copy of the service’s complaints procedure was included in the service user information guide. People told us if they had any concerns they would raise these with the village or care manager.

Is the service well-led?

We saw there was a range of quality monitoring checks in place to make sure managers and staff learned from audit checks. These checks included the following: medication audit and care plan audit. We saw action was taken to address any concerns found.

We saw staff training and supervisions were being monitored. The service held regular staff meetings. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

All the people we spoke with told us that they were treated with respect. They also told us that their opinions were sought so that they were involved in decisions and that they had choice. Their comments included: “they (the staff) open the wardrobe and I choose what I want to wear”, “I am treated with dignity and respect” and “I choose how I am supported”.

People we spoke with made positive comments about the staff and were satisfied with the quality of care that they had received. Their comments included: “the care I receive is first class”, “the quality of care is good and efficient”, “they (the staff) understand that little things mean a lot”, “the two managers are very good”, “my keyworker is brilliant” and “we couldn’t be looked after any better”.

We spoke with one relative who was very satisfied with the quality of care their family member had received. They commented: “they (the staff) have transformed his (family member) quality of life”.

All the people we spoke with told us that they “felt safe” and that they had no worries or concerns. All the staff spoken with were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and the action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse.

Staff spoken with told us that they were supported. Staff were provided with relevant training to maintain and update their skills and knowledge.

The service had a system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

We spoke with seven people and they told us that their opinions were sought so that they were involved in decisions and that they had choice.

We spoke with one relative and they told us they were very satisfied with the quality of care at the service. Their comments included: “It is a very safe environment with other people always around.”

We observed staff in the communal areas of the service giving care and assistance to people throughout the inspection and they were respectful and treated people in a friendly and supportive way. People we spoke with made positive comments about their care and the staff. Their comments included: "The staff are very good, they’re alright.” “No flannel, they’re smashing staff.” “They are very caring.”

We found that staff were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. People told us that they felt "safe" and that they had no worries or concerns. They all said that if they had any concerns or worries they would speak to staff or a relative.

The provider had a recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were appropriately employed. We found that staff had received training. We saw evidence that staff had the opportunity to develop and improve their skills.

We saw that the service had provided people with information about how to complain but we found that the complaints process needed updating.