This announced inspection took place on 8 September 2017. At the last inspection in May 2015 the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ in all key areas.

The service provides domiciliary care and support to people in their own homes, within an extra care housing scheme. Some of the people supported by the service may be living with dementia, chronic health conditions and physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection, 11 people were being supported by the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Potential risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been reduced because there were effective risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how to support people safely. There were systems in place to safeguard people from abuse or avoidable harm and staff had been trained in safeguarding procedures. The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff had regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care and support being provided. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) had been met.

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives. Where required, people had been support to have enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were also supported to access other health services.

People’s needs had been assessed and they had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. People and their relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing people’s care plans. Where required, staff supported people to attend a day centre based in the building in order for them to pursue their hobbies and interests or socialise with others.

The provider had an effective system to handle complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, other professionals and staff, and they acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service.

The service was being well managed and the provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive continuous improvements. The manager provided stable leadership and effective support to the staff. They worked well with staff to promote a caring and inclusive culture within the service. Collaborative working with people's relatives and other professionals resulted in positive care outcomes for people who used the service.

We carried out an announced inspection on 28 May 2015.

The service provided care and support to adults in their own homes. People supported by the service were living with a variety of needs including chronic health conditions, physical disabilities and dementia. At the time of the inspection, seven people were supported by the service.

The service has 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.

There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there were sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided.

Staff received supervision and support, and had been trained to meet people’s individual needs.

People were supported by caring and respectful staff. They were supported to access other health and social care services when required.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of people’s individual needs, preferences, and choices.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.

The provider had effective quality monitoring processes in place.

During our inspection of Colwell Court (Domiciliary Care) on 17 October 2013, we spoke with people who use the service about their experiences. They told us the care workers arrived on time for the correct amount of agreed visits each day. People said that staff were good at knowing what to do for them and how they liked things being done. They said they had the opportunity to talk with the team leader and provide feedback on their care. Overall, people told us they had no complaints about the service they received. One person said: "I'm getting along all right here. The team leader is very good. I wouldn't be without her." Another person said: "I'm getting on very well. They're all friends to me."

We saw that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. In general, we found that people were consenting to their care that was provided in accordance with their wishes.

We found the service had a system in place to obtain people's feedback about their care and experiences. We saw the service responded to incidents and investigations by implementing appropriate changes to reduce the risk of recurrence.

We saw the service had a complaints system in place and people were made aware of the process. We found the service had completed the appropriate checks before staff began work and that the care workers employed were appropriately trained and qualified.

The people we spoke with said they were provided with useful information and felt very involved in the discussions and decisions made about their care and support. They said they had received an assessment of their needs and met with staff to review their needs. They told us they felt safe and well cared for by a friendly and competent staff team who were always available for them and always knew what to do to assist them. People said they had no concerns about the service but knew how to raise concerns should they need to.

During our visit we found peoples' contribution to discussions and decision making about their care to be documented. We saw that people received an assessment of their needs and these were updated in most cases we looked at. We saw that with the considerable use of agency staff, an adequate staff team was available to meet the needs of the people who use the service. Staff were completing a program of mandatory training and were knowledgeable in such things as protecting people from the risk of abuse.

We found that the service had quality monitoring systems in place and people had a variety of methods available for them to share their views and opinions about the service. We noted that where actions to prevent the recurrence of incidents or changes to improve the service were required these were completed.

One person said of Colwell Court: "Anything you ask them to do gets done [and they go] the extra distance to make sure life is easier".