Our inspection took place on 31 October 2016 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in January 2014 we found the provider was meeting all the standards we looked at.

Your Life (Cheadle Hulme) is a domiciliary care service which is located within a large, private housing development, close to local amenities. People own their own apartments within the development, and also have access to communal areas such as a lounge, garden areas and a restaurant. Your Life (Cheadle Hulme) provides personal care to people within the development who need additional care and support, and at the time of our inspection there were 11 people using this part of the service. In addition the service provided some facilities management for the development, and their staff worked in the restaurant and provided cleaning services for the communal areas and in people’s apartments.

There was a manager in post on the day of our inspection. They had started on the day we inspected and told us they planned to submit an application to become registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Staff did not always have supervision meetings at the frequency identified in the provider’s policy. This had already been identified by the area manager and was included in an action plan for the new manager. We recommended the provider take prompt action in this area. We saw staff were having an annual appraisal in line with the policy.

People said they felt safe using the service. The provider assessed and documented risks to people in a detailed way, and provided clear guidance to staff to show how care and support could be delivered safely. People were further protected because the provider ensured staff received training in safeguarding and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.

Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate background checks to ensure people who were barred from working with vulnerable people were not employed. Staff were present in sufficient numbers to enable people’s care and support to be provided in a timely manner.

Medicines were managed safely. There were checks in place to ensure medicines were given when needed, and the provider had begun checking staff competencies in this area.

Staff received a thorough induction including classroom training and a period shadowing more experienced staff. The provider ensured training was updated at regular intervals to help staff remain effective in their roles.

The provider had systems in place to ensure changes in people’s capacity to make decisions were appropriately reported to GPs or social workers to ensure they received the support they needed. Concerns about people’s health were also reported promptly, and we saw the provider ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when this was needed.

People were able to have meals in a restaurant in the development. Although no one was at risk from poor nutrition, staff understood the importance of reporting any concerns about people’s intake of food or drink to ensure their health was maintained.

Care plans were based on a detailed understanding of people’s care and support needs, and we saw they were kept up to date through regular review. We saw the provider took action which showed they were responsive to changes in people’s health.

There were policies and procedures in place to manage complaints, and people had access to copies of these in their care plans and on noticeboards. In addition there were well attended monthly residents meetings with the provider, and we saw evidence action was taken in response to issues raised.

People could access a number of social activities within the development,

At the time of our inspection the provider offered care and support to three people in an assisted living environment at Dutton Court where the service is located. We were unable to speak with the three people using the service due to health reasons.

We spoke with the relative of one person using the service who told us that the care workers addressed their relative in a polite and respectful manner and provided care and support that was in line with the agreed care plan.

We found people’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their assessed needs. Comments from the relative we spoke with included, “I have nothing but absolute praise for the way [relative] is being supported”.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Comments from the relative we spoke with included, “My [relative] has a perfectly good relationship with the staff who visit her. She has trust in them and does feel safe when they are with her (in her apartment)”.

We saw evidence that staff received appropriate training, supervision and support to carry out their job roles appropriately and safely.

We saw the manager and provider undertook audits of the services provided at Dutton Court. Arrangements were also in place to gain additional feedback about the service provided from people who received care and support.