What life is like for people using this service:

Before this inspection we had received concerns from social services, staff, people who used the service and their relatives about the services received at Osmund Court. We found at this inspection that improvements had been made and concerns previously raised had been reduced under new management and a more stable staffing team. People told us that the service had greatly improved over recent months, although noted that this was in progress and that some aspects of the service were “not quite there yet” and were “getting there.” People felt able to raise any concerns they may have openly with the staff and management team. Concerns were acted on and addressed promptly by the management.

People received their medicines safely and newly introduced monitoring systems and procedures had reduced medicines errors that had previously been reported at the service. However, we found that for some incidents, systems weren’t always consistently followed. We made a recommendation about this.

People said they felt safe and reported that the care they received had improved. Staff were trained and understood how to report any safeguarding or other concerns they may have. People were supported to feel safe by caring staff that they knew well. Staff understood the individual preferences of people and were able to provide care for them that met their identified needs. One person told us, “They [staff] understand here and make sure someone comes in early to see me and we have a cup of tea and that makes me less anxious and makes me feel safe.”

Systems and processes for monitoring aspects of the service had improved which provided further safety measures for people who used the service. Accidents and incidents were closely monitored and analysed by the management. Risks to people were assessed and actions taken to reduce these when possible.

People had enough to eat and drink. The landlord at this extra care scheme provided lunch time meals for people as part of their tenancy agreement. People often came together at lunch time and shared their meal in the communal dining area. The on-site care team helped people who needed support to eat their meals. This was done sensitively and was not rushed. People who had any specialist nutritional needs were supported with supplements. Care staff provided support with breakfast and tea time meals in people’s individual flats when this assistance was required.

Staff had received appropriate training and the acting manager planned to source additional condition specific training to enable staff to better understand these and the impact different conditions may have on a person’s daily life. Staff felt supported by the management and received supervision and were observed in practice to monitor their competence in their roles.

People had access to health and social care services. Routine appointments were arranged for people to receive at the service or they were supported to access these in the community with staff assistance. The acting manager and staff team had worked closely with occupational therapy and other professionals including sensory loss specialists to encourage and promote people’s independence.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 was understood by the management and staff team. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions, they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Activities were provided and staff had come into the service in their free time to play games with people who lived there. The care staff and management team were caring, compassionate and dedicated in their roles.

The service was managed well by a passionate and dedicated acting manager. At the time of this inspection the acting manager was in the process of recruiting a new manager for the service. We were tol