We carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 23 September 2016.

The service provides personal care to people living in their own flats in a purpose built building. At the time of the inspection 66 people were living at the service, 31 of whom were supported with personal care. Everyone else who lived at the service managed their own needs independently, although some people made use of a daily welfare check. The service was set up to enable people to request and receive the amount of support they required as and when they needed it.

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.

There were systems in place to safeguard people from harm. Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities to report any matters of concern and were confident to do so. There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff about how risks to people could be minimised.

The provider had robust recruitment processes in place to ensure as far as possible, that suitable staff were employed. There were sufficient skilled staff to provide safe care to people.

Staff received supervision and support, and had training to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided.

The service did not provide meals although staff supported people to prepare meals where this was part of their care package. People were supported to access other health and social care services if required.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences and choices. There was a range of events and activities offered within the communal areas of the building which were based on people’s interests. People had good links with the local community and there was good information provided to people to enable them to know what events were available.

The provider encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service. The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and there were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

We spoke with eight people and two relatives of people who used the service from Housing 21- Shearman Court. All told us that they were happy with the service they received. One person told us, "I like the staff." Another person told us, "It is good."

We found that the care plans were reflective of people's care needs and were assessed to be specific to the care each person required. Where people had specific medical conditions such as epilepsy or a mental health condition staff had received training that ensured people's needs were supported safely.

The provider had good arrangements to promote effective performance of the service. People were asked to provide feedback about the care they received and were appropriately supported. Where improvements could be made the manager had a clear plan in place to ensure the improvements were achieved.

We saw that the registered manager showed clear leadership and that all staff were expected to provide a high quality of care to people. The provider ensured that there staff recruited to the service were appropriately appointed and were skilled to meet the needs of people who used the service.

We spoke with four people who use the service. They told us that staff were polite, respectful, kind and caring. They confirmed that they felt happy and safe and that the standard of care was good. One person told us, “I am receiving a great service and the staff really are excellent.” Another person explained that they were, "very happy with the care received but I would like the opportunity to speak with the manager face to face rather than by telephone."

We found that the needs and risks of people using the service had been assessed. Care plans were in place for everyone receiving personal care, but some had not been reviewed in line with the provider's policy. Staff had had access to good training and were competent in their caring role. However there were some gaps in terms of continual supervision and professional development. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff knew how to report suspected abuse. Staff expressed some concerns about reductions in senior care staff hours.