This inspection took place on the 24 January 2018 and was announced.

A2 Dominion – Care & Support Chimney Court is a domiciliary care agency. Support is provided to people living in Chimney Court and Cornerstones in Reading and Chestnut Court in Staines. Each complex contains individual flats within buildings which are described as extra care housing. The service supports people with a range of needs and operates from an office within each of the housing complexes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to approximately fifty one people across the three schemes.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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 and their relatives told us that they felt safe with staff and would be confident to raise any concerns they had. The provider’s recruitment procedures were robust, medicines were managed safely and there were sufficient staff to provide safe, effective care.

There were procedures in place to manage risks to people and staff. Staff were made aware of how to deal with emergency situations and knew how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through processes that they understood well.

New staff received an induction and spent time working with experienced members of staff prior to working alone with people. Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and support people’s individual needs.

People and their relatives said they felt listened to and the majority were happy with the service provided. They told us that staff treated them with kindness and respected and involved them in decisions about their care.

People’s needs were reviewed and updated regularly. Individual care plans were in place which provided information about people’s care needs and they were specifically designed to promote person-centred care. Up to date information was communicated to staff to ensure they provided appropriate care. People were supported to contact healthcare professionals in a timely manner if there were concerns about their wellbeing.

People and their relatives told us they had been asked for their views on the service and were able to raise concerns and complaints if they needed to. They felt confident that staff and members of the management team would take action if necessary.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There were various formal methods used for assessing and improving the quality of care. Feedback was sought from people, their relatives and health and social care professionals and care records were audited.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported and encouraged to make as many decisions for themselves whenever they were able. Access to community facilities were supported where appropriate.

This inspection took place on the 21 January 2016 and was announced.

A2 Dominion – Care & Support Chimney Court is a domiciliary care agency. Support is provided to people living in Chimney Court and Cornerstones in Reading, Warner Court in Andover, Chestnut Court in Staines and Danemark and Matilda in Winchester. Each complex contains individual flats within buildings which are described as extra care housing. The service supports people with a range of needs and operates from an office within each of the housing complexes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to approximately one hundred and fifty people.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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 told us that they felt safe with staff and would be confident to raise any concerns they had. The provider’s recruitment procedures were robust, medicines were managed safely and there were sufficient staff to provide safe, effective care.

There were procedures in place to manage risks to people and staff. Staff were aware of how to deal with emergency situations and knew how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through processes that they understood well.

Staff received an induction and spent time working with experienced members of staff before working alone with people. Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and support people’s individual needs.

People said they felt listened to and were happy with the service provided. They told us that staff treated them with kindness and respected and involved them in decisions about their care.

People’s needs were reviewed regularly. Individual care plans were in place which provided information about people’s care needs and they were designed to promote person-centred care. Up to date information was communicated to staff to ensure they provided appropriate care. Staff contacted healthcare professionals in a timely manner if there were concerns about a person’s wellbeing.

People told us they had been asked for their views on the service and were able to raise concerns and complaints if they needed to. They felt confident that the manager and/or office staff would take action if necessary.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There were various formal methods used for assessing and improving the quality of care. Feedback was sought from people and care records were audited. Complaints were addressed and action taken according to the provider’s policy.

The registered manager had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to gaining consent before providing support and care.

The agency provided care and support services to mostly older people who lived at one of three extra care and support housing schemes managed by the provider. We found the agency provided personal care and practical support to people who lived at the schemes to help them live as independently as possible.

People who used the services told us they felt safe, cared for and listened to by staff. Comments included, “staff are pleasant”, “Staff have a key so come in when they like, but always knock first” and “I’ve no worries about the care provided, if I was I would go to the manager or staff”.

We spoke with relatives of people who used the services. They told us they were happy with the services provided and were kept informed. One relative said “yes his care plan has been reviewed” and "staff are pleasant and supportive”.

We found staff were knowledgeable of people’s support and personal care needs and had received training to update their skills and knowledge. Staff told us they felt supported by the provider and management team.

We looked at people's care plans and supporting documents. We found people's care plans detailed their needs, and how to meet those needs.

We found people and their relatives had opportunities to contribute their views about the quality of the service. The provider had systems for monitoring services provided.

We spoke with two members of staff, four people receiving care from the agency, two family members of people who receive care and visited the agency to examine records, surveys and meeting minutes. One person told us "Staff are gentle with me and I'm kept involved in the reviews". Another person who received care said "I feel safe around the carers".

The agency did not have all the care records for people who received care at their office. We found that records were waiting to be transferred from another location and were not available for us to view.

We found that people and their representatives had been involved in planning their care. We saw that the staff were familiar with people's needs and gave them opportunities to make choices.

The agency did not ensure that information about medications side effects and reactions was provided to people for whom they administered medication, or the staff administering the medication.

Staff had received an appropriate induction and were also supported through a system of regular supervision and appraisals. Staff we spoke with felt supported by the management team particularly in furthering their skills and development. Training was appropriate to staff roles and regular refresher training was provided.

The agency's quality assurance systems ensured that the performance of the agency was adequately monitored. We found that the views of people receiving care and their representatives were taken into consideration.