This inspection took place on 29 and 30 June 2016. The inspection was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our inspection. This was to make sure we could meet with the manager of the service and care workers on the day of our inspection.

Aurelia branch is a housing with care scheme that is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. Care and support was provided to people in their own flats by care workers at pre-arranged times. People have access to call bells for care workers to respond whenever additional help is required. At the time of our visit the agency supported approximately 20 people with personal care and employed 24 staff.

The service was last inspected on 18 November 2013, when we found the provider was compliant with the essential standards described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

The service had a registered manager. A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.

People and relatives told us they felt safe using the service and care workers understood how to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified and care workers understood how these should be managed.

There were enough care workers to meet people’s needs effectively. People received their care and support from care workers who they knew, and at the times agreed. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability to support people in their homes.

Information about people’s ability to make their own decisions was not always clearly recorded. However, the managers and care workers understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and their responsibilities under the act. Care workers gained peoples consent before they provided personal care and respected people’s decisions.

People were supported with dignity and respect. Where possible, care workers encouraged people to be independent. People told us care workers were caring and had the right skills and experience to provide the care and support required.

Care workers completed training considered essential to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. Care workers completed an induction when they joined the service and had their practice regularly checked by a member of the management team.

People who required support had enough to eat and drink and were assisted to manage their health needs. People saw health professionals when needed and the care and support provided was in line with what they had recommended. Systems were in place to manage people’s medicines safely and staff had received training to do this.

People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Care records gave care workers the information needed to ensure care and support was provided in the way people preferred. However, some care records had not been updated. The manager was aware of this and was working on ensuring all were updated.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise any concerns and felt these would be listened and responded to effectively. Staff told us the manager and senior staff team were supportive and responsive to their ideas and suggestions. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the support provided, and the provider regularly sought feedback from people and their relatives. The provider used this feedback to make some improvements to the service where needed.

During our visit we spoke with the manager, senior care worker and two care workers.

We spoke with five people on the day of our visit, one person following our visit and 14 relatives to obtain their views about Aurelia Care.

People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and treatment decisions. They said they were happy with the care provided.

We saw care plans for three people who used the service. The care plans contained important information about people the service looked after.

Comments from people who received a service and their relatives included, “Lovely here, I have no complaints” and “X gets a very good service.”

Care staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of how to protect vulnerable people.

The service had systems in place to support care staff. Staff told us they had regular meetings to discuss their training and to raise any concerns.

We found the service had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.

When we visited Methodist Homes Aurelia Branch we did so unannounced. This meant that not one who lived or worked at the scheme knew we were coming.

During our visit we met and spoke with the assistant manager, the team leader and two members of care staff. We also met and spoke with three people who lived at the scheme.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service they received. They told us that staff were respectful and that they were looked after by the service well. "They treat me with dignity and respect" and "I'm well looked after, I can't grumble" were two comments made.

We saw that people had been assessed prior to moving into the scheme and that care plans were in place. We found that the care plans contained information to assist staff with meeting people's care needs.

We found that systems were in place to ensure that people's confidential information was maintained securely and in good order.