Our inspection took place on 19 and 22 August 2016 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 16 December 2013 when we found the provider was meeting regulations.

St Mathews Place is an extra care housing scheme that provides personal care to people who are tenants. At the time we inspected St Matthew’s Place was providing personal care to 37 people who lived at the scheme, this the maximum number of people that the provider would normally support with personal care at this scheme. The service caters for older people.

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 felt safe living at St Mathews Place. People thought there was enough staff to ensure they received their planned care visits, with additional support or checks if they needed help between these calls. Systems were in place to identify risks to people. Staff were aware of people’s risks and how to appropriately manage them. People were supported by staff who were employed after appropriate checks were carried out. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed

People thought staff were well trained, and had the knowledge and skills needed to provide them with effective care. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual needs and how to meet these. People’s rights were promoted as staff sought people’s consent before providing care. People were supported with food and drink in a way that met their preferences and addressed their needs. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.

People thought staff were caring, kind and respectful. People said staff respected their dignity and privacy. People said they could make choices about how their care was delivered. People’s independence was promoted.

People had involvement in planning their care and their preferences and requirements were considered in consultation with them. Staff understood what was important for people and ensured this was reflected in the care people received. Staff supported people to socialise with other tenants and provided opportunities to access the wider community. People knew who to complain to and were confident any complaints or concerns would be resolved.

People felt the scheme was well led, with systems in place to ensure people’s views were captured and responded to. The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. Staff were well supported by the provider and told us they were happy working at St Matthew’s Place.

This agency provided care for 33 adults in their own homes within a complex of rented flats. During this inspection we spoke with six people who used the agency, and a relative. We also spoke with three staff members that provided care and support, an administrator and the registered manager at the agency office. The office is located within the complex. We also read records and conducted observations.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support that they received. One person said: “They are very nice; I’m really pleased with them.” Another person said: “They help me with what I need.”

We found consent had been obtained from people before care had been provided. We also found that steps had been taken to ensure that people received individualised care. Care had been planned and delivered in ways that were intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found that when people needed support with their medicines this had been provided. We saw that medicines had been secured, stored and managed safely in people’s flats. Staff had completed records when medicines had been given.

Staff had received training and had been supported by their managers to do their work. However, we found that on some occasions the provider had not planned training effectively. This meant that some staff had not refreshed some of their mandatory training when they should have done.

St Matthews Place is a complex of 50 self contained flats with additional communal living areas. People living in the flats receive personal care from the provider. We only inspected the domiciliary care service provided at St Matthews Place.

Everyone we spoke with was very pleased with the service they received. People told us that they were, “Very well looked after”. One person said they had, “Nothing but praise” for the care they received. Another told us that it was, ”Brilliant”.

People were also very complimentary about the staff. They told us that, “The staff always listen” and “They are so nice”.

We found that the provider offered people lots of ways to be involved in their care. People told us that their views were listened to and respected.

We saw that care plans followed a clear and consistent style and that they were person centred and up to date.

We found that the provider had taken appropriate steps to keep people safe. Staff had received training about safeguarding issues and were familiar with the provider’s policy.

We found that the provider carried out all the necessary checks on new staff before allowing them to start work. We also found that the provider had a suitable system in place to monitor the quality of the service it was providing.

We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. People who use this service referred to themselves as customers. We have therefore called them customers throughout this report.

The customers are the people that live at the service and receive support and care from the staff who are employed to work there.

We observed relaxed and friendly interactions with lots of interaction between visitors, staff and customers throughout the visit. Customers were relaxed with the staff and we saw lots of light hearted chatting and laughing. One customer said, "I can’t grumble at all".

Customers told us that staff supported them to be independent and protected their privacy and dignity. One customer told us that without the staff they did not think their husband would have been in such good health as he is today. A visitor told us that they felt their relative was safe and well looked after. Another customer told us how the manager had sorted out problems for her.

The way information is recorded is changing within the service and the manager told us that staff still have to get to grips with the new ways of recording information. Customers told us that they felt involved in their care and were always involved in reviews. We were assured from talking with customers and staff that despite the changes to the documentation, their needs were being met.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and customers told us that they felt safe living at the service. We saw information on display about what abuse was and how people could report any concerns.

Customers are involved in how the organisation runs and we saw evidence of involvement through meetings, tenant's meetings, questionnaires and reviews.

We could see that there were systems in place for the organisation to monitor the quality of service that they provided. One person told us, "We tell them what we want and they try their best to do it"

Staff told us that they very much enjoyed working at the service, and they got a lot of satisfaction from supporting customers to improve and maintain their independence.