Stamford Bridge DCA (Domiciliary Care Agency) provides personal care to some people living in their own or rented accommodation within an assisted living complex. People can choose to use some of the facilities from the neighbouring nursing home which is on the same site. At the time of this inspection there were 17 people living in the complex and two of those were receiving a regulated activity.

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.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. People told us they were happy with the level of care and support provided by staff, which met their needs.

People were kept safe from harm and abuse. Policies and procedures were updated regularly and staff understood how to identify abuse and report it. Risks to people were identified and managed to prevent people from receiving unsafe care and support.

The service was staffed to meet the needs of people using the service. People received their medication as prescribed and in a safe way. One health professional had identified that a person self-administering their medicines had missed taking their evening dose on one occasion. We discussed this with the provider and they were following this up with the relevant people involved.

Recruitment policies were in place and checks were completed prior to employment which, ensured people were of a suitable character to work in a care setting.

The service had suitable measures in place to prevent and control infection.

Staff received an induction to the service to enable them to carry out their role and understand their responsibilities. Staff had the right competencies and skills to meet people's needs and undertook regular training. Staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to support them.

People's nutritional and hydration needs were met. Staff assisted with preparing meals and made sure people had adequate fluids throughout the day.

People were supported by staff when they needed to attend healthcare appointments. Appropriate referrals were made to health professionals who supported people's health and well-being.

Staff supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives, in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were treated with care, kindness, dignity and respect. People received care and support that considered their needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable and understood people's

care needs.

Care plans reflected how people would like to receive their care and support, and covered people’s diverse needs, such as their religious needs and preferences.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident it would be dealt with appropriately. No-one was currently receiving end of life care.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

This inspection took place on 29 February 2016 and was announced. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location offices when we visited.

Stamford Bridge Beaumont DCA (Domiciliary Care Agency) provides personal care to people living in their own flats within an assisted living complex. The assisted living complex comprised of 30 one-bedroomed flats on the same site as a nursing home with which it shares some services. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living in the flats, and five of these received personal care from the service.

The registered provider had policies and procedures in place to guide staff in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. Staff we spoke with understood the different types of abuse that could occur and were able to explain what they would do if they had any concerns. We found that people’s needs were assessed and risk assessments put in place to reduce risks and prevent avoidable harm. Most of these were reviewed regularly.

The registered provider had a safe system for recruiting staff and was taking appropriate steps to ensure the suitability of workers. There were sufficient staff to meet peoples’ needs, including in the event of sickness and absences.

Where staff supported people using the service to take medication, we found that this was accurately recorded on Medication Administration Records. Staff had received training in administering medication and the registered provider completed audits of medication records and practice. This showed that there were systems in place to ensure people received their medication safely.

Staff completed a range of training to help them carry out their roles effectively and there was a schedule for refreshing this training when it was required. Staff received supervision and appraisal.

The registered provider sought consent to provide care in line with legislation and guidance. We saw that care plans were signed by the people using the service.

People were supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services. We saw evidence in care files of contact with other healthcare services, such as chiropodists.

People consistently told us that the staff who supported them were very caring and that they felt involved in decision making about their care. There was a small staff team so people using the service knew their staff well. People also reported that they felt their privacy and dignity were respected.

All of the people using the service had a care plan, which they had been involved in developing and which was regularly reviewed. We found that care plans contained comprehensive information about peoples’ needs and information about the support provided by staff, although some care plans lacked detail about peoples’ individual preferences in relation to how they liked their support. Staff were aware of peoples’ preferences.

People were actively supported and encouraged to take part in social and leisure opportunities where they wished to do so. People could attend regular coffee mornings, activities and residents meetings and these provided opportunity for social interaction and for people to feedback on the service provided. There was also a complaints procedure in place and people using the service told us they knew how they could raise a complaint and that they would feel comfortable doing so.

People using the service, and the staff, told us that the registered manager was approachable and that the service was well led. There was a quality assurance system in place, including audits of the service and user satisfaction surveys. This enabled the registered manager to identify issues and measure the delivery of care.

At the time of the inspection there were 19 people in the Assisted Living complex with six people receiving a care and support package from the service. We spoke with three of the six people receiving care, the manager and a staff member during our inspection. We also examined the care records for three people who used the service and other relevant documentation.

We saw that care needs were discussed with people and where appropriate their relatives. Before people received care their consent was asked for. From what people told us, what we observed, and noted as part of the review, staff cared for the people who used the service appropriately. People told us "I’m very well looked after", “If there’s anything you want they’ll get it for you” and "The staff are alright, they are nice girls and very friendly".

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. There were appropriate systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and they were acted on. Records were found to be accurate and regularly reviewed.

We spoke with the staff member on duty during our inspection and with three people who used the service. We also examined the care records for four people who used the service and other relevant documentation.

People who used the service told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. They told us that the care workers provided the care they needed, that they protected their privacy and dignity and that they felt safe whilst they were in their home. People told us, "Unquestionably I’m very happy with the care" and "Staff are very pleasant and helpful".

Staff were suitably trained and supported to ensure they could offer the appropriate care to people. People were protected from harm and the risk of harm through staff training and risk assessments. Staff could tell us what they would do if they saw abuse happening or someone reported abuse to them.

There were appropriate systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.