The inspection took place on 27 and 28 September 2017 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intended visit to ensure someone would be available in the office to meet us.

The service was last inspected in June 2015, at which time the service was compliant with all CQC regulations. At the previous inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection the service remained good.

Hagan Hall is an on-site domiciliary care and support service for people who are tenants within the Hagan Hall sheltered housing scheme. The service has twenty four self-contained flats. There were 15 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had 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.

We found care was delivered safely by staff who were appropriately trained. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of people who used the service.

New staff underwent pre-employment Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and other checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people who may be vulnerable.

Risks were managed through pre-assessment and ongoing assessment. Staff displayed a good knowledge of the risks people faced and how to help them reduce these risks.

There were no medicines errors on the Medication Administration Records (MAR) we viewed and staff had received medicines administration training. Their competence was assessed annually. The registered manager undertook medicines audits and we found no concerns in this regard.

New staff received an induction and all staff completed mandatory training, including safeguarding, health and safety, fire safety, infection control and food hygiene. Not all staff had received training in dementia awareness – the registered manager agreed to address this to ensure the service was better prepared to meet the needs of people who may develop dementias.

Staff told us they were well supported and we saw supervisions and appraisals were in place, as well as regular meetings. Team morale was strong and staff told us they felt confident in raising and questions or concerns openly.

People consistently told us they were happy with how staff supported them with their choice of meals although we noted the service could do more to promote people choosing and preparing healthier alternatives.

External professionals we spoke with agreed the care they had observed was to a good standard and that people were treated in a dignified way that respected their individualities.

People contributed to their own care planning and were involved in reviews, with family members also involved. Where people’s needs changed, external professionals told us that staff worked with them to ensure people’s needs were met.

Care plans contained sufficient person-centred information for staff to have a good knowledge of people’s backgrounds, whilst the keyworker system meant staff were generally able to speak in detail about people’s individual likes, dislikes and histories.

The service had a complaints policy in place and people who used the service knew how to complain and who to, should the need arise. People had been supported to make complaints about matters important to them.

People who used the service and staff told us the registered manager was fair, approachable and supportive. We found them and the service manager to have a clear vision about how the service could continue to improve and focus on supporting people to achieve specific outcomes in the future.

We spoke with four out of 22 people who use the service and they told us they were “very happy” where they lived. One person we spoke with said they "got out and about. I have just been to my drawing class”. Another person said "the staff are canny, I have a good laugh with them". They told us they felt safe in their home and staff asked for their views and involved them in their care.

We found people’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected and people experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

We found people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely.

The provider had an effective complaints system available

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

We found people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Care plans were written in a clear and easy to understand way and people's personal preferences were clearly recorded.

There were sufficient staff on duty to support people for their care needs. We looked at how the service recruited staff by checking five staff files. These showed that the appropriate checks and procedures were being followed.

During our visit, all interactions we observed between the staff and the people living at the

home were open, respectful and courteous. They addressed people by their names and spoke respectfully.

We saw that staff provided whatever was wanted in a way that demonstrated a good knowledge of each individual person. Where appropriate, we saw staff providing support and encouragement to the people to do things as independently as possible.

People using the service and realtives spoke positively about care workers and the service they provided.

Comments from person using the service included "I like living here, staff are always available and they are friendly", "I get supported as much as I need and encouraged to do things for myself like tidying my house", "The manager is always avialble for a chat if I need it."

Comments from relatives included, "I am very happy, the staff are execellent", "staff are always busy but are always available for a chat if I need to speak to them", I am always kept informed about my xxxx either by telephone or when I pop in."

People using the service, their relatives and visiting professionals spoke positively about care workers and the service they provided. Comments from people using the service included, “I like it very much”, “There’s nothing wrong with the service, it’s great” and, “They ask me if I need anything”.

A visiting relative told us, “It meets all my mam’s needs. She gets all the help she needs, staff are lovely”.

A visiting professional told us, “I would be happy for my mam and dad to be here”.

This was an announced inspection which took place over two days, 2 and 3 June 2015. The last inspection took place on 6 November 2013. At that time, the service was meeting the regulations inspected.

Hagan Hall is registered with the Care Quality Commission for the regulated activity of personal care. It provides an on-site domiciliary care and support service to people who are tenants within the Hagan Hall sheltered housing scheme. The scheme has twenty four self-contained flats. At the time of inspection there were 18 people receiving the service.

Hagan Hall has a registered manager who is long standing. 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.

We found that people’s care was delivered safely and in a way of their choosing. They were supported in a manner that reflected their wishes and supported them to remain as independent as possible.

People’s medicines were managed well. Staff watched for potential side effects and sought medical advice as needed when people’s conditions changed.

We found the turnover of staff was low and staff felt they were well trained and encouraged to look for ways to improve their work. Staff felt valued and this was reflected in the way they talked about the service and the people they worked with.

Relatives and visitors were all complimentary of the service, and were included and involved by the staff and registered manager. They said their relatives could not be supported anywhere better and they had improved since using the service.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and have good nutrition. They were supported to lose weight if they wished or to access professional advice to maintain their health.

Staff were caring and often volunteered or did extra work within the service to improve the environment, and raise funds to buy things such as a vehicle for the service.

When people’s needs changed staff took action, seeking external professional help and incorporating any changes into care plans and their working practices. Staff worked to support people’s long term relationships and keep them involved in activities that mattered to them. Relatives thought that staff were open and transparent with them about issues and sought their advice and input regularly.

The registered manager was seen as a good leader, by both staff and people using the service. They were trusted and had created a strong sense of community in the service.