The inspection took place on 7 June 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection of the service provided by Help at Home (St Mary’s House).

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

People using the service lived in two schemes of single flats with communal lounge and dining room areas and communal gardens. One was Birch Court in Glen Parva, Leicestershire; and the other was St Mary’s House in Lutterworth, Leicestershire. The main office was at the St Mary’s House site, but each site had an office staff could use.

CQC only inspects services where people are being provided with the regulated activity of ‘personal care’; this is where people are assisted with their personal hygiene. Not everyone using Help at Home (St Mary’s) received personal care. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, 45 people were supported with personal care.

The service had a registered manager. 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 thought staff were kind and caring. Staff supported people to retain their dignity and independence and treated them with respect.

There were enough staff to support people’s needs. There had been some staff vacancies at the Birch Court scheme which had put some pressure on existing staff but new staff had been recruited and it was anticipated this would make a difference.

Staff recruitment procedures reduced the risk of the provider employing unsuitable staff. New staff received a good induction to the service and training to support them to deliver appropriate care to people. Existing staff received regular training to refresh their understanding of the health and social care needs of people they supported.

We have recommended the provider support staff with more in-depth training in dementia care.

People who were supported by staff to receive medicines, received their medicines as prescribed. Contact was made with health care professionals if staff had concerns related to people’s health and well-being.

People at each of the schemes had their main meal at lunch time in the scheme’s dining room, and where necessary staff supported them with their breakfast and evening meals in their own rooms. People enjoyed the two course meals they received at lunchtime.

Staff ensured good levels of hygiene and used gloves and aprons when providing personal care to reduce the risks of infection transferring from one person to another.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff understood the risks associated with people’s care, and were responsive to their needs. People were involved in their care planning and reviews.

People felt able to complain about the service and systems were in place to manage complaints in line with the provider’s policy and procedure.

The provider had good systems to check the quality of care provided to people, and to ensure people received the care they required.

The registered manager encouraged people and staff to engage with them. They had an 'open door' policy to encourage open communication between them and the staff and people who used