ExtraCare Charitable Trust Hagley Road Village is a housing scheme which is registered as a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to some of the people living at the complex. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 54 people living in their own individual flats in the complex and two people living in the community. At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff were aware of the actions to take in order to protect people from avoidable harm and potential abuse. There were enough suitably trained staff on each shift to meet peoples’ care needs. People were supported to receive their medication safely and as prescribed.

The needs of people were met consistently by staff who had the right competencies, knowledge and, skills. Staff respected people’s views and respected their decisions. People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People received suitable support to eat and drink the things they liked and needed to stay well. People were supported to make use of the services of a variety of mental and physical health professionals. When necessary the care manager would signpost people to the provider’s other services within the housing complex which supported people’s wellbeing.

People were supported by regular staff who knew and understood their history, preferences and needs. Staff spoke fondly about the people who used the service and how they enjoyed supporting them to engage in things they liked. Care provided respected people’s privacy and promoted their independence.

Staff had a passion to meet people’s individual needs and wishes. This had resulted in improving the conditions of many people who used the service.

Staff focused on providing person centred care. Staff were flexible with their call times depending upon people’s needs and wishes. People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and staff respected their choices. People could be assured that appropriate action would be taken if they raised concerns or complained.

Senior staff lead by example and were available to staff for guidance and support. Staff were motivated and shared a common vision and set of values. The provider monitored the quality of the service and had taken action when necessary to improve the care people received.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on 24 July 2015 and was announced. At our last inspection in January 2014 the service was complaint with all the regulations we looked at.

The service provided domiciliary care to 50 people who lived in their own homes within the provider’s housing scheme and to a further eight people who lived in their own homes in the community.

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. The registered manager was away during our visit however we spoke with them afterwards.

People were kept safe from the risk of harm. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and who to raise concerns with. People had assessments which identified actions staff needed to take to protect people from risks associated with their specific conditions, although some of these needed to be improved with additional information People were supported to take their medications as prescribed however guidance for staff was not always clear about application of prescribed creams.

People were supported by the number of staff identified as necessary in their care plans to keep them safe. There were robust recruitment and induction processes in place to ensure new members of staff were suitable to support the people who used the service

Staff had the skills and knowledge to ensure people were supported in line with their care needs and best practice. There were regular supervisions and appraisals which supported staff to meet people’s care needs.

The care manager and staff we spoke with were knowledgeable of and acted in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff sought consent from people before providing personal care.

When necessary, people were supported to eat and drink and access other health care professionals in order to maintain their health.

People had positive relationships with the staff that supported them and spoke about them with affection. The provider sought out and respected people’s views about the care they received. Staff promoted and upheld people’s privacy and dignity.

The provider was responsive to people’s needs and changing views. People were supported by staff they said they liked and care was delivered in line with their wishes. People could raise concerns and complaints and they were managed appropriately.

People were confident in how the service was led and the abilities of the management team. Although the registered manager was unavailable during our visit, the care manager and staff were aware of and adhered to the provider’s vision and policies. The provider had established processes for monitoring and developing the quality of the care people received.

When we visited 24 people were receiving personal care. We spoke with four people who used the service and the relative of one person who used the service. We also spoke to the care manager, three care staff and a social worker who supports some of the people receiving care. A person who used the service told us, “They are 24 caret, you can’t fault them.” We also looked at records.

People who used the service were involved in planning their care. They were supported to make choices about the care they received. One person told us, “They always ask what I want every day”.

Care was planned and designed to meet the individual health and welfare needs of the people who used the service. A person we spoke to expressed confidence that their care was planned, managed and delivered with dignity in the way that was promised.

We saw that the provider had made suitable arrangements to ensure that people who used the service were safeguarded against the risk of abuse.

The provider had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure that people employed at the service were of good character and had the necessary skills, qualifications and knowledge to meet the needs of the people who used the service. A member of staff told us, “I feel I can raise anything if I’m worried”.

The provider was able to protect people from unsafe care and treatment by regularly assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.