This was an announced inspection which took place on 07 September 2017. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service. This was so that we could be sure that staff would be available to support us.

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection of the service on 29 May and 01 June 2015. At that inspection we found that the provider was providing a good service and the service was given a rating of Good in all the questions we asked.

Saxon Court is housing with care scheme which provides housing with personal care support for people living in Saxon Court. Support is provided to people who require it following assessment of their needs and care is provided by a team of staff based within the scheme. At the time of this inspection 33 people were receiving support.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 continued to receive a safe, good quality service that met their needs. Everyone spoken with told us that they felt a safe service was being provided. People told us that they were happy with the care provided, felt safe with the staff and generally had the same staff to support them. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in respect of raising any concerns they had and able to use the systems in place to escalate their concerns.

People were supported to receive an effective service because there were sufficient numbers of suitably recruited and trained staff available. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to remain healthy and to have their personal preferences met.

Systems were in place to keep people safe in emergency situations and to have their medical needs met if needed.

People were supported by staff that were caring, kind, friendly and that helped people to maintain their independence and privacy and dignity.

People’s needs were regularly reviewed to ensure the service continued to meet their needs.

Systems were in place to gather the views of people and to ensure that the quality of the service was regularly reviewed and monitored so that people continued to receive a good quality service.

During our inspection we spoke with five people that used the service, one relative, four care staff and a manager.

People that we spoke with said that they and their relatives were involved in agreeing and planning their care. We found that people’s views and experiences were taken into account in how the service was delivered.

People told us that their needs were being met. One person told us, “They seem alright and they do what they have to do. I have no complaints.” We found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs, but that not all risks associated with their care was being adequately identified.

People told us that they felt safe with the staff that visited the. One person told us.” We found that the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People told us that they had no concerns about the staff that visited them. We found that staff were suitably recruited into their role.

People that we spoke with were confident that their complaints would be listened to and acted upon. One person told us, “I know how to complain. In the past if I have been unhappy I have told the office and they have dealt with it.” We found that systems were in place to investigate people's complaints.

The people we spoke with who received personal care from the agency were happy with the quality of care received.

People told us they were happy with the support they received and that it made a difference to their everyday living. They told us that they were treated with respect and that care staff maintained their privacy and dignity. They told us that care staff completed the care and support required. People told us that care staff arrived at the correct time to assist with their care needs.

People made the following comments:

“Absolutely fine, everything is OK.”

“Carers are good.”

Care and support was being provided to people who lived in the community in their own homes and to others who lived in a building consisting of individual flats.

Some people we spoke with who received personal care from the agency were happy with the quality of care received, others told us that calls were made late and that staff did not always stay for the allocated period of time. We reviewed care and support plans of the people who use the service. The log books completed by care staff at the end of each visit confirmed some calls were made late and that staff may not stay for the full time.

We found that some care and support plans for people who used the service were appropriate for them; one care plan included shortened times for each of the four visits per day. The instructions provided by Birmingham City Council were for longer calls to be made. People who had mental health illness did not have risk assessments in place for this aspect of their care. There were ongoing failures of care staff to record administration of peoples prescribed medications.

People told us that they were treated with respect and that care staff maintained their privacy and dignity.

This was an announced inspection which took place on 29 May and 01 June 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because the service provides domiciliary care and we wanted to be sure that staff would be available.

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection of the service on 29 and 30 April 2014. At that inspection we found the provider required improvement in the management of medicines, safe staffing levels, and the management of safeguarding, missed calls and complaints. We found at this inspection that improvements had been made across all areas needed and the provider met the regulations.

Saxon Court is a housing with care scheme which provides housing with personal care support for people over 55. Domiciliary care packages are allocated according to people’s assessed needs with care provided from a designated team of carers based within the housing scheme. There were 108 people living within 87 flats and eight bungalows and 28 people were using the domiciliary service. In addition the provider also run Birmingham Domiciliary care from the same location and this provided 40 care packages to people living in their own homes in the South Birmingham area.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

All the people that we spoke with told us that they received a safe service. Procedures were in place to ensure that people received a safe service. The risk of harm to people who used the service was assessed so that people received care and support in a safe way.

People received their medicine as prescribed and systems were in place to ensure that risks to people was minimised.

People told us that there was enough staff employed to provide a reliable service and to meet planned and scheduled calls. However, some people living at Saxon Court told us that there should be more staff at night to respond to emergency calls.

Staff received the training and support needed to ensure they did their job well and provided an effective service.

People received support with their food, if needed and people told us that staff helped them to access healthcare support and emergency services where required.

People and relatives told us that they were able to raise their concerns or complaints and were confident that they were listened to.

The management of the service was stable and there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.