This inspection took place on 6 and 14 December 2018 and was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection, because we needed to be sure people would be in when we visited.

Deansfield Court is registered to provide personal care to older people who may also be living with dementia, a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health needs, a physical disability or sensory impairment.

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Not everyone living at Deansfield Court or using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This was the first inspection of Deansfield Court since its registration in December 2017. At the time of the inspection there were 34 mainly older people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. They had been the registered manager since December 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 registered manager also managed another of the provider’s services and split their time between the two locations. They were supported by two team leaders in the management of the service.

People told us they felt safe with the support that staff provided. Staff were safely recruited and enough staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were trained to recognise and respond to any safeguarding concerns to help keep people safe.

Risk assessments generally contained proportionate information about risks and how these should be managed. We made a recommendation about using nationally recognised evidence based tools to support effective management.

The provider was implementing a new medicine policy and procedure to make sure staff had been given enough information about when to administer ‘as required’ medicines.

Staff completed a comprehensive programme of training. The registered manager monitored staff’s performance and made sure they were supported to learn and develop in the role.

Staff supported people to make sure they ate and drank enough. They shared information and worked with healthcare professionals when needed to make sure people received effective care.

People 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.

Staff were kind and caring. They treated people with respect and supported people in a way which helped maintain their privacy and dignity.

Staff understood people’s needs and how best to support them. They had developed positive relationships with the people they supported. People benefited from the companionship and person-centred care staff provided. The provider was exploring how to implement good practice guidance relating to end of life care.

People told us the manager was approachable and responsive to feedback. There were systems in place to make sure any complaints were investigated and a response provided.

Staff worked well as a team and were well-supported by the management of the service. There was a positive and person-centred culture. People enjoyed staff’s compa