Goldfield Court provides domiciliary care in an Extra Care Housing complex, where people live and receive most of their support within their own flats. At the time of our inspection the service was being provided to 71 people who lived at the complex. At our last inspection, in December 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care and were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Care staff protected people from abuse and harm. Risks to people were consistently assessed and guidance was available for care staff to follow to ensure they were protected from harm.

People continued to receive effective support from care staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their specific needs. People were enabled to have maximum choice and control of their lives. People were assisted to access appropriate healthcare support and were assisted where necessary to take a nutritional diet.

People continued to receive a caring and compassionate approach to their needs which included involving them in decisions about the support they needed. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected. People’s diverse needs were recognised and care staff encouraged people to continue to enjoy the activities and/or hobbies they enjoyed.

The service continued to be responsive and involved people in developing their care plan so that their individual preferences and abilities were known and these were respected by care staff. People were able to speak openly with care staff and tell them if they were unhappy or wanted to make a complaint.

The service continued to be well-led with appropriate checks and audits in place to ensure that the quality of the service was maintained. The management of the service was stable. Arrangements both formal and informal were in place to obtain people’s views about the service and make any improvements.

We visited the service on 19 December 2014. This was an announced inspection. This meant the service was given short notice that we would be visiting the office from where the care was organised.

The service provided is a domiciliary care service for people living in an extra care setting. This means that people using the domiciliary care service also have the benefit of staff being available on site so call times and peoples support were monitored by the manager on a daily basis. People also have the benefit of an alarm system so they can call for help if needed.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them and they felt secure knowing that someone was around at all times if they needed help. Peoples care needs were assessed and risks that had been identified were monitored and managed appropriately.

The provider had procedures in place so staff were given the training needed to support people. Staff were recruited to ensure there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. People spoken with felt that the staff that supported them were trained and competent to meet their needs.

People were able to make decision about their care and were actively involved in how their care was planned and delivered.

People were able to raise their concerns or complaints and these were thoroughly investigated and responded to, so people were confident they were listened to and their concerns taken seriously.

Staff supported people with their nutrition and health care needs and referrals were made in consultation with people who used the service if there were concern.

People were support with their medication and staff had been trained so people received their medication as prescribed.

The management of the service was stable.  Processes were  in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.   People who used the service were asked to comment on the quality of service they received. The information was used to improve the service where possible.

During our visit, we spoke with seven people using the service, two relatives, three staff and the manager. People were supported in a way that enabled their privacy, dignity and independence to be respected. One relative told us, “I am very happy with the care that is provided to my relative because since moving into Goldfield Court and using the service provided by Housing 21 their health has improved”. The person they were speaking about confirmed this. They told us, “I feel much better I have my independence but help when I need it’’.

All seven people spoken with were happy with the service provided. People had individual care plans that they had agreed too. This meant people were involved in the care that was provided.

Staff received a range of training so that they had up to date knowledge and skills in order to support people receiving a service.

The provider had clear procedures in place to identify and respond to suspicions of abuse to ensure people were protected against abuse.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Improvements were made by listening to the views of people using the service, their relatives and taking the appropriate actions.

There were 91 people living at this extra care facility on the day of our inspection. People who lived there had various levels of need. At least 24 people who lived there did not require any care. Sixty seven people did require care. Some of those people required minimal support and prompting whilst others required in excess of four calls a day to provide full care and support.

During our inspection we met and spoke with 20 of the people who lived there, eleven relatives and seven staff.

All of the people and their relatives we spoke with told us some positive things about the care provided. One person said, “I did not really want to leave my home but I was not safe. I am settled here now and am happy”. Another person said, “I like it here”. One relative said, “Now I know that they are safe I feel so much better. They were at risk when they lived at home. I have no concerns”. Another relative said, “They are well looked after”. However, a small number of people told us that some improvements could be made particularly concerning activity provision.

We determined that a range of health care professional input had been secured, including specialist doctors and district nurses, to monitor and meet people’s healthcare needs. We saw that equipment needed to prevent risks and meet people’s needs was available. This meant that steps were in place to enable people to have their healthcare and safety needs met.

In general we found that medication management systems were in place to enable people to have their medication as it had been prescribed by their doctor.

We found that adequate staff were provided to meet people’s needs.

We saw that recruitment processes ensured that staff employed were suitable and safe to work with the people who lived there. This protected people who lived there from the risk of harm and abuse.

We found that some systems had been used to monitor how the service had been run and people had been encouraged to give their views about the service provided.