We inspected Ogilvie Court on the 22 January 2019.

About the service: - Ogilvie Court provides accommodation for up to 25 people who have a learning and or physical disability and require personal care. The location is divided into four separate buildings catering for no more than six people, Chelmer, Moore, Turner and Danbury. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection 20 people were using the service. The service was set in a semi-rural area with extensive grounds. Each building had access to their own landscaped gardens in addition to shared areas. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they enjoyed living at the service. People also told us how their lives had improved since living at the service and that they were enjoying their lives and looking forward to a more independent future.

The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. 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 support this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment was well maintained and suitable for the needs of people.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The registered manager had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 4 May 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

Ogilvie Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 25 people who have a learning or physical disability. The location is divided into four separate houses where people lived, Chelmer, Moore, Turner and Danbury.

There were 21 people living in the service when we inspected on 5 April 2016. This was an unannounced inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. Risk assessments provided guidance to staff on how risks to people were minimised. There were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure people’s medicines were stored and administered safely.

Staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff were available when people needed assistance, care and support. The recruitment of staff was done to make sure that they were suitable to work in the service.

The service was up to date with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 20015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner.

People were provided with personalised care and support which was planned to meet their individual needs. People, or their representatives, were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

A complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.

We spoke with two people who used the service, four members of staff and the new manager as part of our inspection. One person who used the service communicated to us they were happy and enjoyed trips out into the community.

We saw how the service had changed the way that food was obtained which instead of mostly large deliveries involved the people who used the service going to the supermarket with staff. This meant that the people who used the service had become involved in shopping and exercising their choice of which food to purchase.

We inspected five outcomes during our inspection and found there was a quality monitoring system in place to identify good practice and areas for improvement. The recruitment procedure was robust which meant only suitable people were employed at the service. There was a safeguarding policy and procedure in place so staff would know what actions to take to protect people from abuse. The service was involving people that used the service to gain their full consent whenever possible to determine how they wished for their care and support to be delivered. The service had reviewed and changed the care plans for each person and sought specialist advice. Although a great deal of work had taken place when comparing to the previous plans there was still some work to do complete the plans and ensure that the people that use the service, families and advocates were involved as fully and appropriately as possible.

During our inspection of Ogilvie Court on 4 March 2013, we spoke with eight people, the manager and staff. People we spoke to were all very complimentary about the care they received and told us they were very happy living at Ogilvie Court. All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home and they were able to make choices about whether they wished to participate in activities. One person told us “The staff are nice.”

We observed that, in their different ways, people showed they were content living at this home and that they had good relationships with the staff. They showed that they felt safe, and were satisfied with the service being provided. There was laughter and friendly banter between staff and people living there during our inspection.

Care records were not up to date and there were two different care plans in place making it difficult to understand what the persons support needs were. However, we observed and talked with staff and found them to be very knowledgeable about the needs of people who lived at Ogilvie Court.

Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and what to do if they suspected any abuse had occurred. The provider had a complaints procedure and people were supported to make a complaint if they wanted to.

People with whom we spoke told us that they are actively involved to provide feedback on the care and support that they receive at Ogilvie Court. This they do by attendance at the Your Voice' Quality Board Meetings which take place every three monthly.

We spoke with four people who used the service, looked at six care records and spoke with three members of staff. We viewed the staff rota’s and quality monitoring systems. We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service the manager greeted us, noted our identification and asked us to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

We saw the staff rota and dependency levels assessment which showed that the service assessed people's needs to ensure that there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs.

We reviewed staffing records regarding The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and saw this training was up to date. The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

There were systems in place to audit medication and care plans which ensured there were effective systems in place for the delivery of care.

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw that staff had signed records to show they had been reviewed monthly and updated appropriately. This meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

Is the service caring?

We saw that the staff interacted with people who lived in the service in a caring, respectful and professional manner. We saw that the staff, while making future plans with a person who used the service, had supported them to contact lost family members.

Is the service responsive?

The service had an effective complaints procedure in place which included a pictorial system to support people. We examined the care records of six people who used the service and noted the that risk assessments were reviewed and updated in response to events. This ensured people received safe and appropriate care.

Is the service well-led?

The service had undergone a number of changes since our last inspection. The Ark, a place that people can attend to pursue interests or use the sensory room operates seven days per week. A designated member of staff worked there five days per week and a shop had opened within the past month. The plan was for people who use the service to manage the shop at some time in the future. This has been brought about by the manager’s open discussion with staff and people who used the service. Then a plan had been put into operation to turn this plan into reality. The manager toured the service at least once per day to meet with people who used the service and staff to resolve issues at the time. The service worked well with other organisations and services including speech therapy, health and social care professionals to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.