The inspection took place on 28 September 2016 and was announced to make sure that the people we needed to speak with were available. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our inspection to make sure that the appropriate people were present. At our last inspection on 13 November 2013, the service was found not to be meeting the required standards in Care and welfare. However at this inspection we found that the service had made the required improvements. The service provides support to people who live independently in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people living at Goodes Court. However, only six people required the regulated activity, personal care.

There was a registered manager in post who had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported by Your Life Royston to live in their own homes at Goodes Court with staff that supported people’s needs.

People felt safe, happy and were looked after in their homes. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report concerns both internally and externally. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to help ensure that all staff were suitably qualified and experienced.

Staff completed regular health and safety checks that included security and fire safety.

Staff received training and refresher updates relevant to their roles and had regular supervision meetings to discuss and review their development and performance. People and their relatives were positive about the skills, experience and abilities of the staff.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary.

Staff made considerable efforts to ascertain people’s wishes and obtain their consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way. Information about other care providers was available to people to ensure people had choice.

Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they supported and clearly knew them well. People were involved in the planning, delivery and reviews of the care and support provided. The confidentiality of information held about their medical and personal histories was securely maintained throughout their home and in the office.

Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. People received personalised care and support that met their needs and took account of their preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s background histories, preferences, routines and personal circumstances.

People were supported to pursue social interests and take part in meaningful activities relevant to their needs, both at their home and in the wider community. They felt that staff listened to them and responded to any concerns they had in a positive way. Complaints were recorded and investigated thoroughly with learning outcomes used to make improvements where necessary.

Relatives and staff were complimentary about the registered manager and how the service was run and operated. Appropriate steps were taken to monitor the quality of services provided, reduce potential risks and drive improvement.

On the day of our inspection on 13 November 2013, there were six people living at Goodes Court who received care and support from the domiciliary care service, 'Your Life (Royston)'.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support they received. One person we spoke with told us: "They are a lovely lot. I can't praise them [the staff] highly enough". People told us that they felt they were treated with dignity and respect, and involved in the planning of their care.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's care and support needs and we observed staff speaking with people in an attentive and polite way.

Care plans we looked at were person centred. Some records we looked at provided detailed information for staff about people care and support needs. However other records did not provide sufficient information for staff to ensure that they were able to meet people's assessed care needs safely.

Records we looked at showed that people's medicines were administered to them in a safe way.

Overall, staff we spoke with told us that they felt well supported and had received the training they needed to do their job.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. One person we spoke with told us that staff listened to people and were: "Always open to suggestions".

People that we spoke with were positive and complimentary about the care and support they received and commented that, “The carers are kind and I look forward to seeing them”. People told us that they felt involved in changes to their care and support and that their views and concerns were listened to and properly dealt with. Care and support was well coordinated and care planning documentation was detailed and showed peoples’ preferences and details of how care should be delivered.

There were safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from harm. Staff had received training and they were clear about their responsibility in reporting any incidents or allegations of abuse.

There were induction programmes and mandatory training in place to ensure that staff were competent to deliver care. Supervision was regularly provided to staff to monitor their work performance and development needs.

Quality assurance procedures were in place to monitor the running of the agency and people using the service were able to raise any issues and concerns with the management team.