The inspection took place on 3 and 4 August 2016 and was announced. At the last inspection completed 3 June 2014 the provider was meeting all of the legal requirements we looked at.

Mattesley Court is an extra care housing scheme that provides accommodation and care. The service is registered with CQC to provide personal care to people living at the scheme. At the time of the inspection there were 36 people using the service for support with personal care. There was a registered manager in post, however, they were completing an internal secondment to another role at the time of the inspection. Alternative management arrangements were in place on a day to day basis while the registered manager was absent and CQC had been notified of these arrangements. 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.

People were not always protected by effective medicines management systems. People were however, protected by a staff and management team who knew how to recognise and report potential signs of abuse. Staff understood the potential risks to people’s safety and knew how to reduce the risk of harm to people. People were supported by sufficient numbers of care staff who had been recruited safely for their roles.

People were enabled to consent to their care and support. People were cared for by staff who had the skills to support them effectively. People were supported to meet their nutritional and day to day health needs.

People were supported by a staff team who were caring in their approach and understood their needs. People were enabled to make day to day choices about their care. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were promoted and they were treated with respect. People were supported to maintain important relationships with friends and relatives.

People and their representatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care. The care people received met their needs and preferences. People were supported to take part in leisure opportunities. People told us they knew how to complain and felt confident their concerns would be addressed by management.

People told us the service was well-led and they felt supported by the staff and management team. People were supported by a committed, motivated staff team. Quality assurance checks were completed across the service to identify areas for improvement and further develop the service provided to people.

Mattesley Court provided domiciliary support to people who lived in privately rented or part owned flats. On the day of our inspection 63 people were living within the service and 40 people were receiving personal care from Housing and Care 21 support staff.

In this report the name of the registered manager, Mr Brian Taylor appears, who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still identified as the registered manager on our register at the time.

There were shared communal areas including a restaurant, library, shop, hairdressers and seated areas. The property was owned and managed by Housing and Care 21 and people had an individual tenancy agreement. The building and accommodation were not regulated by the Care Quality Commission; our inspection focused on how people’s personal care was provided.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

People using the service were encouraged to retain their independence and decide how to spend their time. People agreed with the level of support they needed and how they wanted to be assisted. Where people’s needs changed, the provider responded and reviewed the care provided to ensure people were safe. This meant the people received care to meet their needs.

People using the service received support when necessary to take their medicines as prescribed. Weekly audits were completed so staff could easily identify that medicines had been dispensed as required. They could also identify stock inconsistencies and any administration errors. Medication sheets did not record all medicines administered in detail to ensure that people received their medicines in a safe and consistent way.

People using the service had capacity to make decisions about their support and care. The staff had received training for The Mental Capacity Act 2005 which sets out how to act when people no longer have capacity. This meant that staff could ensure that where people no longer had capacity, appropriate decisions would be made in their best interests

Is the service effective?

People using the service had care records which reflected the care and support they wanted to receive. People could choose when to receive support and how they wanted staff to help to them to enable them to continue to live in their own home.

People continued to have responsibility for contacting and arranging appropriate health care to keep well. Where people had healthcare appointments or personal commitments people could request the time of the support provided was changed.

The care records reflected any changes in health which meant staff could continue to provide effective care.

Is the service caring?

The staff were respectful and knowledgeable about people’s care and people confirmed that it was carried out in the way they had requested. They had confidence that the staff had the skills necessary to meet their needs and were caring and compassionate. Staff received specific training to meet the needs of people using the service which meant people received safe care.

People kept a copy of their care records in their home and could decide who they wanted to view them. People told us the staff knew how to keep information confidential and were respectful with comments which were written about the support they received.

Is the service responsive?

People were happy with the care and support they received. People had information about what they could expect from the service and were central to the development of their support plan. People met with staff to review their plan and could decide whether the agreed care still met their needs. This meant people received the support they wanted.

Activities were organised to ensure people had opportunities not to be socially isolated but respected people’s decision about whether they chose to be involved.

People had opportunities to raise any concern or complaint and were confident that these were dealt with promptly and effectively.

Is the service well-led?

Systems were in place to ensure the service was monitored and the provider sought to make improvements where needed. People using the service were consulted about the management of the service and could influence the service delivery. There were systems in place to ensure staff knew about any changes and developments. This meant the provider was able to respond to any changes promptly.

The service had a registered manager in post and there were clear management structures offering support and leadership. This meant the home had a positive, empowering culture. Records showed that CQC had been notified, as required by law, of all the incidents in the service that could affect the health, safety and welfare of people.

Mattesley Court is an Extra Care Housing provision for people aged 55 years and over. Some of the people living at the court had care requirements; staff were available 24 hours a day to provide care and support. Mattesley Court were not required to be registered with CQC for accommodation, as people were living in their own homes. They were registered to deliver personal care to people; this is the area we looked at during the inspection.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears. They were not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this service at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time. A new manager was in post, they were in the process of submitting their registered manager’s application to CQC.

The care staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the care requirements of the people living at the court. However, the lack of regular assessments and reviews meant this information was not always reflected in the care plans and risk assessments.

Not all staff had received regular supervisions or updates to their mandatory training. This had been identified by Housing 21 during an audit. An action plan was in place to address the gaps in training requirements.

There was a complaints process in place; people living at the court told us they were aware of the complaints procedure. People were confident their complaints would be managed appropriately.

We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. We visited Mattesley Court in order to up date the information we hold about the service and to establish that the needs of people using the service were being met. The visit was unannounced which meant the provider, manager and the staff did not know we were coming.

Mattesley Court was an Extra Care Housing provision for people aged 55 years and over who had care needs. Accommodation comprised of 59 flats including two respite flats. Staff were available 24 hours a day. In house facilities consisted of a restaurant, hairdressing salon and a well being suite, there were also plans to reopen a shop which had recently closed down. As an extra care housing provision Mattesley Court was not required to be registered with CQC for the accommodation, this was because people were living in their own homes. They were however registered to deliver personal care to people, this is the area we looked at during the inspection.

During our visit we spoke with seven people who lived at the court, six staff members, the care coordinator and the manager. Through a process called 'pathway tracking' we looked at three care plans, spoke with people about the care they received and asked staff about how they provided support. This helped us establish whether people were getting appropriate care that met their needs and supported their rights.

In the communal areas there were a number of people who lived at the court sitting watching TV, chatting together, or sitting quietly with a cup of tea. During the inspection we observed a person looking around the court with their family with a view to moving in. Staff and other people living at the court greeted them warmly, inviting them to stay for a drink. We observed some good interactions from staff with people living at the court.

We viewed training records and spoke to staff about training that was available to them. The staff we spoke with told us that training was available and they were supported by the management regarding their learning and development needs.

During the inspection we looked at the process the service had in place to monitor the quality of the service provided . We found systems were in place for auditing documentation within the service.