This was the first inspection of Surrey Court since the current provider took over the running of the service on 28 June 2017. The inspection took place over three days on 27 June, 4 and 5 July 2018 and was announced 24 hours in advance.

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 bought or 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 live in their own flats within a shared building containing 70 flats. The building also houses the offices used by the registered manager and staff.

Not everyone using Surrey Court ECH receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; such as help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At the time of this inspection, 30 people received personal care and 22 other people received support checks from Radis staff.

The service has 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 expressed concern about staffing numbers not being sufficient and the effect this had on visit times and staff morale. This was also reflected in the feedback from staff. The care schedules did not always give time for staff to move from one flat to another between providing care, so people were not assured of receiving their full allocated care time.

The provider did not have robust procedures and processes to protect people using the service from abuse or improper treatment. Staff we spoke with knew how to report safeguarding concerns. However, not all staff had received training in safeguarding.

The proper and safe management of medicines was compromised by inadequate receipt & storage arrangements.

Feedback from the majority of people we spoke with indicated that care workers had the qualities and skills to deliver effective care. However, Staff did not all receive appropriate support and training to enable them to carry out their duties.

We received positive comments from people about the caring approach of staff. There were however also a number of comments indicating the service was not always operating in a way that treated people with respect and offered a person centred service. Staff did not feel well supported by the provider to deliver person-centred care.

The quality assurance system was not effective in identifying issues within the service. There had been a lack of effective oversight by, and feedback from, the provider. Audit trails were not complete. The culture within the service did not support the delivery of high quality care. People did not always feel listened to by the provider and that their concerns were responded to effectively. CQC was not always notified when required of incidents.

A system was in place to keep track of and record relevant checks that had been completed for staff who worked in the service.

People’s consent was sought to confirm they agreed with the care and support provided. The provider had policies and procedures for when people were not able to make decisions about their care or support.

Where people required support in relation to preparing food and drink this was recorded within their care plans.

People’s care records showed relevant health and social care professionals were involved with people’s car