Audley Care Tunbridge Wells provides care and support to people who want to retain their independence in their own home. The service was located on the same site as a sheltered housing scheme and provided care and support to people who lived there and who lived in the community. At the time of this inspection 50 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager at 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.

The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place and staff knew what action to take if they suspected someone was being abused. The provider had a system in place to protect people from financial abuse. Safe recruitment checks were carried out. People had risk assessments carried out to ensure safe care was provided and potential risks were minimised. There were systems in place to ensure people were supported to manage their medicines safely.

Staff were supported with regular training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and when they needed to obtain consent from people. Staff supported people with meal preparation and were aware of people’s nutritional requirements and food preferences.

Staff were aware of people’s needs and how to develop positive relationships. People and relatives thought staff were caring. Staff demonstrated their awareness of how to provide dignified care, respect people’s privacy and encourage independence.

Care plans were personalised and staff demonstrated awareness of providing personalised care. Complaints were dealt with appropriately and in accordance with the provider’s policy.

The provider had systems to check the quality of the service provided. People and staff were asked for their views about the service. Staff had regular staff meetings to receive updates on the service.

At our inspection on 4 February 2014 we found that some records relating to people’s care and support had not always been fully completed or checked when they should have been, in order to make sure that people were receiving the care and support they needed.

On this inspection we found that systems had been out into place to make sure that regular checks of people’s care records were made. This was in order to make sure that they had been correctly completed and information was up to date.

We did not speak with people who used the service on this occasion.

We visited the office and spoke with the registered manager and five members of staff. The service was located on the same site as a sheltered housing scheme and provided care and support to people who lived there and who lived in the community. We visited three people who lived on the site and spoke with four people and three relatives on the telephone after the inspection.

People told us they were able to make decisions and choices about the way their care and support was delivered. People and relatives confirmed that they had been involved in decisions about their care and support before they started receiving a service.

People’s needs and preferences were set out in their individual care records. The information provided staff with guidance about how to meet people’s needs in the ways they preferred.

People told us that they liked the staff and that staff were kind, caring and respectful. Their comments included “I can’t fault them at all”, “they are very amenable”. Comments from relatives included “I would highly recommend them, they are very, very good”, “I certainly would not change them my (relative) gets the best care” and “I find them really good”. People told us staff respected their independence and supported them to do the things that they were able to.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. These included internal and organisational audits and systems for gaining the views of people using it. People told us that overall they were satisfied with the service. One person told us “It’s very good and I have no complaints, I’m quite satisfied”.

We found that some people’s records relating to their care and support had not always been fully completed or checked when they should have been, in order to make sure that people were receiving the care and support that they needed.

During our visit we spoke with four people who were using the service and two people who had used the service flexibly when they or their relative had needed support for a while. We spoke with three members of staff and telephoned a health care professional after the visit. We looked at a range of documents including care plans, medication records and examples of policies and procedures.

People who used the service told us that they had discussed their care and support needs with staff and that their needs were reassessed if they changed. One person said that the care plan had been reviewed about three months ago and that “It was drawn up with me”.

People said that they were happy with the support they received and they knew the care workers who supported them. Occasionally they did not have a call covered by the careworker who they had been told in advance would be coming but they always knew the careworkers who did come to support them.

Care was delivered flexibly and requests for changes, for example to visit times or days, were usually accommodated even at quite short notice. People confirmed that late evening visits were available so that they did not have to get ready for bed before they wanted to.

People told us they liked the staff, one person told us “I get on pretty well with my carers” and another that “I can’t fault the carers”.

People said staff supported them safely and were polite and respectful towards them. They said if they needed to they could call the office and that overall the service communicated well.

People told us they had discussed their care and support with staff at the start of using this agency after this discussion about their care tended to be reactive to any changes. Most people told us they did not know about their care plan and people did not feel they sat down with staff to carryout a review of their care plan. People were satisfied with the care and support received. People were able to make decisions and had control over their day to day lives. Care records did not always contain enough detail to make sure people had consistent care as they had agreed. People said the standards of hygiene and infection control of staff was good. The management of people’s medication needed some improvements to ensure systems were completely safe for people. The staff team was stable. Staff were recruited in a safe way. There was sufficient staff on duty to meet peoples needs. People told us staff were kind and caring. Staff had received training. The service did checks to ensure things ran smoothly and people were satisfied with the service. People felt confident to raise concerns but did not have any. Records were stored appropriately and safely.