We completed an unannounced inspection at Pannel Croft Village on 7 July 2016. At the last inspection 10 April 2014 we found that the service was meeting the required standards in the areas that we inspected.

Pannel Croft Village is part of an extra care housing service which can provide personal care to people. People are supported with their personal care needs to enable them to live in their own homes and promote their independence. Not everyone that lives at Pannel Croft Village receives personal care. Pannel Croft Village is a community of people that can purchase or rent their accommodation so that they can live independently but with the reassurance that there is always someone available to support them if they need support and advice.

There are facilities available in the village such as a restaurant, shops, market stalls, hairdressers and gym that can also be used by people in the community but systems are in place to prevent them from being able to access private accommodation areas.

At the time of this inspection the service supported 42 people in their own homes. People are able to receive support from other agencies if they want.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 were generally happy with the care and support they received but several people felt that not having regular staff to support them meant they did not have the opportunity to develop relationships with the staff. They [people] also felt they were left not knowing which staff to expect. Some people felt that staff were sometimes rushed and didn’t stay the amount of time they were supposed to stay.

People were supported to have food and drinks to remain healthy but some people were not happy with how their food was prepared on occasions.

People were protected from harm because there were systems in place to identify and manage risks associated with their needs. Staff were able to recognise concerns of abuse and harm and knew what actions to take to keep people safe.

People and relatives felt that there were sufficient numbers of staff available that knew their needs and were able to meet all their physical and emotional needs.

Staff had been checked to ensure that they were suitable to work with people and had received training to ensure they had the skills to meet people’s needs and ensure their human right to give consent was maintained.

People were supported to have their health needs met by ensuring they received support with their medicines where needed, referral to the appropriate health care professionals and by using the services available in the village.

People received care and support from staff that were kind and caring and that maintained their privacy, dignity and independence.

People were involved in identifying their needs and arranging how they were to be supported. The service was responsive to people’s changing needs. People were continually asked for their views about whether their service could be improved. People and staff were valued members of the community and systems were in place to recognise and award them for their actions.

Effective systems were in place to manage the service and to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had adequate arrangements in place to manage people’s medicines with them.

Staff were well trained in their roles and told us they felt supported by their manager.

Systems were in place to make sure that the service learned from any incidents, concerns, or complaints. This reduced the risks to people and helped the manager to continually look to improve.

We spoke with five staff and twelve people who use service during our visit.

Staff were knowledgeable and were able to describe people’s risk plans to us.

Staff communication was good, with all staff confident in their roles.

People’s individual health and care needs were assessed when they first came to the service.

People told us that the staff who supported them were very, very good in their roles.

Staff were respectful of people they supported, and used positive terminology on each occasion.

Feedback was complimentary and positive from the people we met. One person said, “The staff are very nice indeed”. Another told us, “Nothing is too much trouble for them” and ”I can’t fault them”.

People knew how to make a complaint. From the care records, we saw that that any concerns were investigated is in a timely way, with actions taken where necessary.

From the care records, we saw that the service had a quality assurance system that identified issues promptly. As a result, the quality of the service was continuously improving.

During our inspection we spoke with four peoples, the relative of two people, four members of staff and the manager, and looked at four people's care records.

We found that people were supported in making day to day decisions about the care they received. People's values and diversity were respected and promoted. One person told us that, "My carers always explain what they're doing."

The care people received was reflected in their care plans, and people told us they received care which supported their needs.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected from harm. People said that they felt safe living at the service. One person told us, "Yes, I do feel safe here." One relative told us, ‘’The service is wonderful, it gives me peace of mind.’’

We found that staff were recruited in a safe way and correct checks were carried out to ensure their suitability to care for people.

The service carried out various audits, which meant that people who lived there could be assured of the quality of the service and the safety of equipment and premises. People told us that the service held regular residents' meetings and collected their views in other ways. People told us they were aware of how to complain and felt confident that any issues they raised would be dealt with promptly.