We carried out an inspection of Housing & Care 21 - Priory Court on 26 January and 2 February 2017. The inspection was unannounced. We last inspected Housing & Care 21 - Priory Court in August 2015 and found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at that time.

Housing & Care 21 - Priory Court provides personal care for up to 41 people who have privately rented flats within an extra care housing facility and also to people in the wider community. At the time of the inspection there were 42 people in receipt of a service.

People said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew how to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns, helping to keep people safe. Incidents and allegations were notified to the local safeguarding team and the provider worked positively with statutory agencies, such as the local authority and Care Quality Commission.

Staff provided safe care. There were sufficient staff employed to ensure continuity of care and the reliability of the service. New staff were subject to a robust recruitment process, including checks for criminal convictions. Staff managed medicines safely, with any errors dealt with promptly and appropriately.

Staff undertook training relevant for their role and the needs of people using the service. Training included care and safety related topics and refresher training was planned. Staff were well supported by their supervisors and the registered manager.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care. The registered manager was aware of the principles and practice of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how they applied to this service. Support was provided with food and drink appropriate to the level of people's needs. People were able to readily access an on-site restaurant. People’s health needs were identified and where appropriate, staff worked with other professionals to ensure these needs were addressed.

People told us staff were kind and caring. Staff explained clearly how people’s privacy and dignity were maintained.

Assessments of people’s care needs were obtained before services were started. Care plans were person-centred and had sufficient detail to guide care practice. Staff were well informed about people’s changing needs. People and their relatives expressed satisfaction with the care provided.

Some activities were offered, although people using the service said they would like more diversity.

The service had a registered manager in post. The registered manager and senior staff implemented systems to monitor and manage quality, which included feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. Action had been taken, or was planned, where the need for improvement was identified. Records were organised and easily retrieved.

During the inspection we were able to observe the experiences of the people who used the service. At the time of the visit we found that they numbered forty-one. We also spoke with the people who used the service and their relatives. The comments were very positive. One person told us, “It’s good here. I am happy with the care from the staff”. Another told us, “I get well looked after, they are really friendly. The staff give me the help when I need it. We spoke with the eight staff on duty and the manager. Staff told us they were well supported in their work. One member told us, “I am very pleased with the training here, it’s very good”.

We were able to observe the experiences of people who used the service. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. We saw that as they responded to any calls for assistance they spoke to people with courtesy and respect. We saw that they rang the bell or knocked on the doors of people’s flats before they entered. In cases where people had their doors open staff would ask for permission before they entered.

We saw that the people using the service related well with the staff. We saw that the staff communicated effectively and appropriately with people, addressing them by the title of their choosing. The relatives we spoke to were positive about the care received by their relatives. People who used the service also told us that they felt safe in their homes. They described the arrangements for entering the scheme and their own individual flats. One person told us, “I really like it here, I feel very safe”.

We saw that Priory Court had a number of communal lounges where activities took place. There was also a shop on the premises, a dining area with a café, and a hairdresser’s salon. We saw that staff were attentive and interacted well with people. People told us that they liked to make choices. On the day of the inspection we saw people supported to the communal dining room if they so desired.

In order to determine how care and treatment was provided we spoke with staff, observed their practices and looked at the records of ten people who used the service.

The manager had carried out a survey in January 2013 of each person who used the service. In the survey the people that used the service said that the care at the home good and that they service felt safe.

“The staff are all very friendly; they come and help me with the housework.”

“Staff are canny, the very best you can get.”

“It’s alright here, I don’t’ have any complaints.”

“It’s fine here; I just let the staff know if I want anything”.

We found that people were involved in their care and were treated with respect.

We found that people who used the service had their care and welfare needs met.

We found that staff were supported in their roles and had received training and guidance in supporting people. We found that people were safeguarded against abuse.

We found that staff had been well supported to deliver care and treatment safely.

We found that people’s views were important and listened to. We found that there was an effective complaints system in place.

The reason for this visit was to check improvements had been made following a previous inspection. We found the provider had made significant improvements in medicine related record keeping arrangements. We checked a sample of medicine records and found these were up to date, accurate and available to people using the service.

We found there were arrangements in place for obtaining and acting in accordance with people’s consent to care. We spoke with six people living at Priory Court. When we asked, people confirmed they were asked for their consent before agreeing to their care and receiving their medicines.

People received the care and support they needed, and people told us they were happy with the care and support they received. For example, one person remarked, “I find the night time support reassuring.” Another person said, “I’m happy with the help, it’s alright for me.” People told us they received help with their medicines. One person noted, “My medicine stocks are always available.” We found there were gaps and inconsistent recording practice in some people’s medicine records.

Staff were polite, courteous and appropriately qualified. People also made positive comments about the staff, and the comments we heard included, “They (the staff) work really hard.” and “The (staff) are here for you.”

People using the service gave positive comments about their experiences of the service and care workers. They said, “We’re well looked after”; “The carers are lovely, very kind”; “I’m so happy I came to live here”; “We’re safe and secure”; and, “You know you can count on them”.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 6 and 8 January 2015. One breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach of regulation regarding assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the revised legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to this requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Housing and Care 21 - Priory Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We found the provider had met the majority of assurances they had given in their action plan and were no longer in breach of the regulation.

The standards of quality assessment and monitoring had improved since the last inspection and were of an acceptable standard. A new manager had been appointed and had applied for registration. 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 using the service (tenants) and staff made positive comments about the manager’s approach and the improvements they had brought to the service. There were now staff and ‘tenant’ meetings taking place regularly. People’s views on the quality of the service were being sought and acted upon. People using the service and staff felt informed about changes in the service. A new quality assurance system had been introduced, but withdrawn temporarily due to IT difficulties. We were assured this would be reintroduced as soon as these problems were resolved.