We undertook an announced inspection of OSJCT Isis Court on 1 February 2018.

OSJCT Isis Court provides extra care housing for up to 20 older people. The office of the domiciliary care agency OSJCT Isis Court is based within the building. The agency provides 24 hour person centred care and support to people living within OSJCT Isis Court, who have been assessed as requiring extra care or support in their lives. On the day of our inspection 17 people were receiving a personal care service.

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 [bought] [or] [rented], and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

Why the service is rated Good:

The service was exceptionally well led by a highly motivated registered manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. There was a very positive culture that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos. The registered manager led by example and displayed a detailed knowledge of people that enabled them to create an environment where people’s condition and well-being were a key to the delivery of a service that benefitted people’s lives.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and strived for continuous improvement. There was a very clear vision to deliver high quality care and support and promote a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering. This achieved excellent outcomes for people and contributed to their improved quality of life. Staff felt empowered and inspired by the registered manager and shared his vision for a “Family environment” at the service. The registered manager was robustly supported by the domiciliary care trust manager and provider.

People remained safe living in the service. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people. Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking which enabled people to live their lives as they chose. People received their medicines safely.

People continued to receive extremely effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's GPs to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.

The service continued to provide support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people as individuals and treated them with dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those needs.

People had access to information about their care and staff supported people in their preferred method of communication. Staff also provided people with emotional support.

The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly and their views were sought and acted upon.

We undertook an announced inspection of OSJCT Isis Court on 14 January 2016. OSJCT Isis Court is a purpose-built property in Donnington Oxford, providing extra care housing for up to 20 older people. The office of the domiciliary care agency OSJCT Isis Court is based within the building. The agency provides 24 hour person centred care and support to people living within OSJCT Isis Court, who have been assessed as requiring extra care or support in their lives. On the day of our inspection 16 people were receiving a personal care service

There was a registered manager in post. However, on the day of our inspection the registered manager was on maternity leave. The service was being managed by the area housing and care manager. They told us a new registered manager was applying for the post. 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.

We were greeted warmely by staff at the service who seemed genuinely pleased to see us. Throughout the day we saw visitiors to the service being greeted by staff in the same welcoming fashion. The atmosphere was open and friendly.

People told us they benefitted from caring relationships with the staff. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people received their care when they expected. The service had safe, robust recruitment processes.

People were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.

Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicine as prescribed.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The covering manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected.

People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the covering manager. Staff supervision and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the covering manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service.

People told us the service was friendly, responsive and well managed. People knew the managers and staff and spoke positively about them. The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care. We looked at six care records for people who used the service. All the care plans we saw were person-centred and evidenced their life history, interests and hobbies.

Care plans were person-centred, regularly reviewed and gave care workers clear guidance on what care people required.

We saw that risk assessments were carried out to ensure the health and safety of the person using the service as well as the care workers delivering care.

All care workers had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse including mental capacity training and deprivation of liberty safeguards. This was documented in training records and included regular updates. In discussion with care workers it was confirmed they had received the training and were confident reporting any concerns that abuse had taken place.

People that we spoke with said there were always enough care workers on duty to meet their needs.

We looked at audits of care records. This showed that monthly spot checks were carried out on daily records, risk assessments and care plans to see if they were completed and reviewed in line with the provider’s policy. Any actions arising from the audits were allocated to an individual and were completed. This showed us that the provider acted on audit results to ensure care records reflected the current needs of people.

All records seen were up to date.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

The care plans and risk assessments we saw provided detailed information about people’s needs and how these were to be met.

One person who used the agency told us that staff were “very helpful in reminding me to take my medication”. Another person told us that “if my GP makes any changes to my medication the staff know about it”.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

People we spoke with confirmed that they felt comfortable speaking directly to the manager or staff if they had any concerns. They told us they felt the staff listened to them and would deal with any issues they raised.

We spoke with people who were able to give us their view of the services provided by the domiciliary care agency OSJCT Isis Court. They told us that they were treated with respect by staff. They told us they were involved in the decisions made about their care and had no concerns or worries about the care they received. They told us that they were kept fully informed and could approach staff if they were worried or concerned.