Lansdowne House provides personal care for older people living in their own homes. On the day of the inspection the registered manager informed us that there were a total of 57 the people receiving care from the service.

A registered manager was in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risk assessments were in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare, though some more were needed to cover all assessed issues. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.

People and relatives we spoke with told us they thought the service ensured that people received safe personal care from staff. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area.

We saw that medicines had been, in the main, supplied safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs.

Staff had received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs, though training was needed on some issues.

Staff did not all understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives. Assessments of people's capacity to make decisions were detailed to determine whether they needed extra protections in place to keep them safe.

People and relatives we spoke with all told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. They told us they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet their needs.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service to ensure that their needs were met.

People and relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns, and they were confident these would be properly followed up.

People were satisfied with how the care they had been provided with. Staff felt they had been, in the main, supported in their work by the management of the service.

Policies set out that when a safeguarding incident occurred management needed to take appropriate and action by referring it to the relevant safeguarding agency. We saw evidence that incidents of this nature had been reported to us, as legally required.

Notifications of concern had been reported to us, as legally required, to enable us to consider whether we needed to carry out an early inspection of the service. Management had carried out audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service.

Lansdowne House provides personal care for people living in their own homes. On the day the inspection the registered manager informed us that there were 48 people receiving a service from the agency.

A registered manager was in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their relatives we spoke with said they thought the agency ensured that people received safe personal care. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and staff understood their responsibilities in this area.

Risk assessments were not always fully detailed to assist staff are to support people safely.

People told us that they received their medicines on time which protected their health needs.

Staff had not always been safety recruited to ensure they were appropriate to supply personal care to people.

Staff had training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to be able to meet people's needs, though more specialist training on meeting people’s individual needs was not fully in place.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choice about how they lived their lives. However, there was no assessment process in place to determine if people had capacity to make decisions about their lives.

People or their relatives told us that people had been assisted to eat and drink and everyone told us they thought the food prepared by staff was well prepared and tasty.

Staff had an awareness of people's health care needs, so they were in a position to refer to health care professionals if needed.

People and their relatives we spoke with told us that staff were very friendly, kind, positive and caring.

People, and their relatives, were involved in making decisions about how personal care was to be provided.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service, with information about people's social care needs.

People or their relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any complaints and were confident any issues would be properly followed up.

People and their relatives were generally satisfied with how the agency was run by the registered manager and his management staff.

Management carried out audits and checks to ensure the agency was running properly. However, audits did not always include the detailed checking of all issues or action evidenced to provide a quality service.

We spoke with two people who used the service and a representative of someone who used the service and asked them for their views about the service. People’s comments included: - “It’s all very good and you want for nothing, I know what’s in my care plan and I can change the support I receive should I need too.” “I’m happy with the service my friend receives.” People who used the service and their representative told us they were happy with the service provided and that they were able to influence the support they received.

A majority of people who use the service live within an extra care housing scheme. We visited two schemes which were located in Glen Parva and Lutterworth in Leicestershire and spoke with 7 people asking them about the service they receive. People we spoke with were satisfied with the service provided by Lansdowne House of Age UK Leicester Shire and Rutland and the attitude and approach of staff. People’s comments included: “Very pleased, I feel safe with the staff.” “They’re all really good shining stars.” “If I have any difficulties they’re there.” “I think it’s a very good service, the carers are all approachable and you can have a laugh with them.”

We saw that people's needs were assessed, and care and support plans were in place, which were supported by risk assessments. This meant people receive support in a way that meets their needs and promotes their safety. People’s records were stored securely within the offices based at the extra care housing schemes. People we spoke with told us they had a copy of their care plan and were aware that staff completed daily records about the care provided.

We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, and make improvements where required.