This inspection took place on 23 April 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider two days’ notice that we would be visiting their head office as we wanted to make sure they were available on the day of our inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Roden Court 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 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. There are 40 flats available for rent. On the day of the inspection there were 23 people receiving personal care.

People told us they liked the staff and felt safe with them.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe. Staff understood that people were at risk of discrimination and knew people must be treated with respect. Staff understood there were laws to protect people from discrimination.

Where risks to people’s safety had been identified ways to mitigate these risks had been discussed with the person and recorded so staff knew how to support the person safely.

The service was following appropriate recruitment procedures to make sure only suitable staff were employed.

Staff had completed training in the management of medicines and understood what they should and should not do when supporting people or prompting people with their medicines.

Staff were provided with the training they required in order to support people safely and effectively.

Staff offered choices to people as they were supporting them and people were involved in making decisions about their care. People confirmed they were involved as much as they wanted to be in the planning of their care and support.

Care plans included the views of people using the service. 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 supported this practice.

The management and staff responded quickly and appropriately to any changes in people’s needs and care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences.

People told us they had no complaints about the service but said they felt able to raise any concerns without worry.

People who used the service and the staff said they felt the service was well run but also felt that communication from the management team could be improved.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 5 April 2016 and found one breach of regulations. This was because we found errors in medicines recording for some people using the service. This meant we could not be sure that medicines were administered safely. Additionally we found that temperatures for the fridge housing medicines were not monitored. This meant we could not be sure that medicines were stored in a safe way, according to legal requirements.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach described above.

We undertook a focused inspection on the 5 October 2016 to check the provider had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This inspection was unannounced.

This report only covers our findings in relation to these requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Roden Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Roden Court is an "extra care" housing provision operated by One Housing Group Ltd. in Haringey, North London. There are 40 flats available for rental by older people. The Care Quality Commission regulates the personal care service provided to residents by One Housing Group Ltd. On the day of our inspection there were 36 people receiving a person care service.

The service has a registered manager who had been in post since the service opened in 2013. 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.

During our focused inspection we found the provider had followed their action plan. People were receiving their medicines as they had been prescribed. The provider had also ensured there were systems that were being effectively operated to monitor and assess the quality of service that people received. Furthermore, temperatures were being monitored for medicines that required storage in the fridge, in accordance with legal requirements.

This inspection took place on the 5th April 2016 and was announced. At our last inspection in August 2014 the service was meeting the regulations inspected.

Roden Court is an "extra care" housing provision operated by One Housing Group Ltd. in Haringey, North London. There are 40 flats available for rental by older people. The Care Quality Commission regulates the personal care service provided to residents by One Housing Group Ltd. On the day of our inspection there were 37 people receiving a person care service.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since the service opened in 2013. 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’s needs were assessed and care plans were developed to identify what care and support people required. People said they were involved in their care planning and were happy to express their views or raise concerns. When people’s needs changed, this was quickly identified and prompt, appropriate action was taken to ensure people’s well-being was protected. People had a copy of their care plan in their home.

People felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise the signs and symptoms of potential abuse and told us they would report any concerns they may have to their manager. Assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to the people using the service and the staff supporting them. This included environmental risks and any risks due to people’s health and support needs. The risk assessments we viewed included information about action to be taken to minimise these risks.

However we found errors in medication recording for some people using the service. We have asked the provider to take urgent action to address this.

Staff were highly motivated and proud to work for the service; as a result staff turnover was kept to a minimum ensuring that continuity of care was in place for most people who used the service.

Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and maintained their dignity. Staff told us they gave people privacy whilst they undertook aspects of personal care, asking people how they would like things done and making enquiries as to their well-being to ensure people were comfortable.

Care staff received regular supervision and appraisal from their manager. These processes gave staff an opportunity to discuss their performance and identify any further training they required. Care workers we spoke with placed a high value on their supervision.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to care for the number of people living at the service.

We saw that regular visits had been made by the office staff to people using the service and their relatives in order to obtain feedback about the staff and the care provided.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA.The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).We found that the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and there were no authorisations to deprive people of their liberty.

The management team provided good leadership and people using the service, relatives

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Training records showed that most staff had completed safeguarding adults training within the last six months.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place, and staff had been through induction and shadowing before starting work. This ensured that the staff were of good character and were competent enough to meet the care and welfare needs of people.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in the care planning process and that they were happy with the care that was provided.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People told us that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us, “nothing is too much trouble for them.’’

People using the service, and their relatives, were contacted regularly to check if they were satisfied with their care. People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the scheme. People had access to activities that were important to them.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The provider had a robust complaints procedure that was accessible to people who use the service.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us that the management team was’’ always routing’’ for people who used the service and ‘’responded very quickly.’’

Staff told us they were very happy with the manager, “the manager is very good, we all help each other.” Another person told us “the manager is very open; we can speak to her anytime.”

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities, and had a good understanding of the ethos of the agency, quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We spoke with three people using the service and three staff members.

People expressed their satisfaction with the service and the care they were receiving. They said staff were helpful and looked after them well. One person said, “staff are very kind”. " I never have to wait for my medicines".

Systems were in place for the management of medicines. These had improved since the previous inspection when compliance action had been taken because of shortfalls.

Action had been taken to employ more permanent staff, deliver further training and carry out more frequent medication audits.

We observed that there was a new medicines policy which referred to the new pharmacist supplier and the services they offered.

The auditing systems were much more comprehensive and frequent and were identifying problems. We saw that sometimes the action taken was not recorded in detail so that problems could be reduced further.

Roden Court was opened in July 2012. There are 40 flats available for older people to rent. There are several two bed flats for couples. On the day of the inspection, there were 28 people living in the block, with seven more due to move in before Christmas.

The care and support needs of people living at Roden Court are assessed by the local authority. The service is provided by care workers employed by One Housing Group, separately from the terms of the people’s tenancies. The range of support people received varied and included assistance with personal care and medication, preparing meals, help with shopping, assistance with managing their finances and cleaning the flats.

We inspected the service on the 10th December 2012. We looked at care records of a number of people using the service, staff files and other records relating to the care and support provided. We spoke with the extra care project manager, eight people using the service and five care workers. We observed care and support being provided in communal areas of the block.

None of the people we spoke with mentioned any concerns they had with the service. One person told us “it’s lovely here.” Another said “I’ve got all I really need.”

We had concerns over the provider’s management of medication. We noted that the provider had been working actively with the local authority commissioners to address the issues, but we have set a compliance action under the relevant outcome.

We spoke with 11 people who were using the service. They were generally very positive about their experiences of the support they were receiving. They told us they felt the care was good and that staff came when they needed help. We received the following comments from people using the service:

“I like it. They give you help if you need it. You get a cup of tea.”

“It’s all right here.”

“It is good.”

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

The provider did not have the appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that people were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management of medicines. We judged this had a moderate impact on people using the service.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.