We inspected 30 Foster Court on 22 February 2017, which was unannounced. At our last inspection on 23 October 2014. We found that the legal requirements were being met.

30 Foster Court is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people. People who used the service predominately had a learning disability and/or a physically disability. At the time of our inspection there were seven people who used the service.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Medicines were managed in a way that kept people safe.

People were kept safe because staff understood how to recognise possible signs of abuse and the actions they needed to take if people were at risk of harm.

People’s risks were assessed in a way that kept them safe whilst promoting their independence.

We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. The registered manager made changes to staffing levels when people’s needs changed.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and the provider had safe recruitment procedures that ensured people were supported by suitable staff.

Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate decisions are made in people’s best interests where they are unable to do this for themselves.

People’s capacity had been assessed and staff knew how to support people in a way that was in

their best interests. We found that where people were able they consented to their care and treatment.

People were supported with their individual nutritional needs and were able to access other health services with support from staff.

People told us and we that saw staff were kind and compassionate. Staff treated people with respect, gave choices and listened to what people wanted.

People’s preferences in care were recorded throughout the care plans and we saw that people were supported to be involved in hobbies and interests that were important to them.

The provider had a complaints procedure that was available to people in a format that they understood.

Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable. Staff understood the values of the service and were enthusiastic about their role and what their support meant for people.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided. The registered manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

We inspected 30 Foster Court on 23 October 2014 which was unannounced. At the last inspection on 24 July 2013, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the way staff responded to an emergency, the management of medicines and how records were stored, and we found that these actions had been completed.

30 Foster Court is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people. People who use the service predominately had a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were eight people who used the service.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service received their medicines safely. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected from the risks associated with medicine management.

People’s risks were assessed. We saw that staff carried out support in a safe way whilst promoting and maintaining their independence.

We saw that there were sufficient qualified and experienced staff available to meet people’s assessed needs. The registered manager had made changes to the staffing levels which ensured people were kept safe.

People who used the service and their relatives told us the staff treated them with compassion, dignity and respect. We saw that staff listened to people and encouraged them to make choices and decisions about their care.

Staff received regular training which ensured they had the knowledge and skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported to carry out their role effectively.

We found that some people who used the service were unable to make certain decisions about their care. In these circumstances the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate decisions are made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves.

People were supported at mealtimes and had regular access to other health professionals that ensured their health and wellbeing needs were met.

We saw that the provider promoted an open culture. People and staff told us that the management were approachable and that they listened to them.

The registered manager regularly monitored the quality of the service provided and action plans were in place where improvements were needed.

During our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service, two relatives, four members of care staff and the registered manager. People told us they were happy with their care. One person told us, “It’s good here. The staff are nice and the food is nice”. A relative told us, “My relative is in good hands. He’s waited on hand and foot”.

During our last inspection, we found that improvements were needed to ensure that people were protected from the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. During this inspection, we found that further improvements were needed to ensure that medicines were stored and administered safely.

We saw that people people’s consent was sought when appropriate, and when people were unable to consent, decisions were made in their best interests.

People received care and support from staff who had received the required training and support and people felt able to tell staff if they were unhappy with their care.

We found that effective systems were not in place to respond to emergencies and people’s care records did not always contain up to date support plans and records were not always stored securely.

There were seven people living at Royal Mencap Society, Foster Court, Stoke on Trent, at the time of the inspection. During the inspection we spoke with three people using the service, the registered manager and three staff members. We reviewed documentation including care plans and made observations throughout the visit. Three of the people using the service needed a great deal of personal care and had learning disabilities, with limited communication skills. The other four people were more independent with the ability to express themselves.

People using the service were asked in a number of ways how they wanted their care to be delivered and their dignity and privacy was promoted and maintained. People using the service we spoke to all said they ‘really liked’ living at the home and staff involved them with what went on.

Effective, safe and appropriate care was received by people using the service, to meet their needs.

We found the medication storage systems in place did not ensure that people received medication which was safe to be dispensed.

Evidence we gathered indicated that staffing levels were adequate and that staff were supported through appropriate training. This included both core and additional. One staff member said ‘the training provided gave them the confidence to do their job’.

Systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality of service and to ensure people benefit from the service provided.

We undertook this review to check that people were being cared for safely.

The home was divided into two flats. People living upstairs were quite independent and those we spoke with told us that they liked living there. They told us they did lots of activities around the home including deciding on their meals, cooking and helping with cleaning and tidying their bedrooms.

People living downstairs were more dependent and had needs relating to dementia. These people had specialist communication needs and staff were aware of how they expressed their likes and dislikes. We observed that their health and personal care needs were identified and met. There was evidence of specialist health care support being provided.

People living at thehome were supported to have their personal care needs. The had daily showers and had their hair and nail care addressed. Where people had specialist dietary needs the staff were aware of this and provided people with the support they needed.

Staff were trained to meet people's needs and had specific training in meeting the needs of people with dementia.

The service had both internal and external systems in place to review and monitor the quality of the service.