Sydney Brown Court provides personal care and support to people living in their own flats in a sheltered housing complex. On the day of our inspection on 6 December 2016 there were 34 people using the personal care service. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to know that someone would be available.

There was a registered manager in 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.

There were systems in place which provided guidance for care workers on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised.

Where people required assistance to take their medicines, there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

There were sufficient numbers of care workers who were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Care workers were caring and respectful and had good relationships with the people they cared for.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support and people received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.

Where people required assistance with their dietary needs, there were systems in place to provide this support safely. Where required, people were provided support to access health care professionals.

A complaints procedure was in place and people’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.

There was good leadership in the service. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.

We spoke with six people who used the service. We looked at five people's care records. Other records viewed included staff training records, risk assessments, tenants and staff meeting minutes and a selection of the services policies and procedures. This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us they were treated with respect and dignity by staff. People told us they felt safe and that if they had any concerns they would raise these with staff or with the manager. People got the support they needed when they needed it and risks to people’s safety were identified and managed.

Is the service effective?

People received the care and support they required to meet their needs and maintain their health and welfare. People who lived at the service were included in making decisions about how the service was run. People's care and support had been reviewed and care plans regularly updated. Staff had been provided with up to date training in a range of topics including manual handling.

Is the service caring?

People who lived at the service and their relatives told us staff were caring and respectful. People were supported by attentive staff who were readily available to support them. We saw that staff showed warmth and familiarity in their one to one interactions with the people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

People who lived at the service were listened to and their views were acted upon. People were asked to give feedback on their experience of the service. The registered manager did this, through the use of surveys and meetings. People’s feedback was then used to make improvements to the service.

Is the service well-led?

During our inspection we looked at the quality assurance systems currently in place at the service. We found that the provider had put in place both internal and external audits designed to monitor the quality of the service. We saw records which confirmed that the provider had an effective system in place to take account of comments or complaints relating to the service.

We were able to speak with six people who used the service, three relatives, three members of staff and the manager. Overall people who used the service were very satisfied with the service received. The three relatives we spoke with expressed their concerns about the absence of management at the service as they also provided management cover for another service. People told us that where they had raised concerns the service had responded quickly.

We spoke with six people about the care they received. One person told us, “The staff are very kind, I have a lovely girl who comes to help me.” Another person told us, “They are so nice, they make me smile.”

We found that the care plans did not always reflect the individual personal care needs of the person who used the service. We were not assured that the care planning always met individual needs. We found that through speaking with people and observing interactions between people and care staff that people were treated with dignity and respect. People’s independence and expressed wishes were also respected.

We found that people’s medication was being recorded and administered effectively and safely. We also found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. However the service was not always clear on its purpose in providing personal care, this was because many people felt this was a care home and not a very sheltered housing accommodation.

We spoke with ten people who were using the service on the day of our inspection. They all confirmed to us that they felt safe and that staff came quickly if they needed assistance. One person said, "I think the staff are lovely. Nothing is too much trouble." Another person told us, "The food is very good. There is always a choice." Two people suggested that they would like to have more daily chat with staff where possible.

We found that the manager was providing a week day food service, beyond the requirements of a supported living service. Eight people fed back to us that the food was very good and that they appreciated the opportunity to purchase food and eat in a communal environment. Our observations confirmed that people were supported to access nutritious food and plentiful fluids and choices were provided.

We spoke with five members of staff and noted that they all knew the potential signs of abuse and how to take action to prevent it. The service had dealt appropriately with recent safeguarding issues.

Staff had received refresher training in all mandatory topics and displayed a good knowledge of people's needs and how to meet them.

Our inspection of 25 May 2012 found failings in the management of medicines and shortfalls in relation to safeguarding people using the service and supporting staff. Our return visit on 23 July 2012 found that the provider had made the required improvements in relation to the management of medicines. On this return visit we found that the provider had made the required improvements to achieve compliance with the regulations for safeguarding people who use services from abuse and supporting staff.

People told us that they were able to choose how they spent their time. Some people preferred to stay in their flats, where as other people chose to socialise with other tenants in communal areas of the service. We spent time talking with a group of people sitting in the dining area. They told us that they liked to meet every afternoon to play cards and talk to each other over tea and biscuits. They told us that they were happy with the service they received and were complimentary about the staff.

We spoke with four people to find out what it was like living in Sydney Brown Court. They told us that they were content living in the service. One person told us, "I am very happy here, I count my self very lucky to have found Sydney Brown Court”. One person commented, “I am very happy, the staff are good, they always turn up on time and they have never missed a visit”. However, one person told us that staff had missed their scheduled visits, on three separate occasions.

We spoke with one person who used the service who confirmed that appropriate procedures were followed to decide on administration of the persons as required drugs.

At our visit to Sydney Brown Court on 25 May 2012 people told us that they were “Happy” with their living accommodation, and that the staff supporting them were “Nice”. They also told us that they were generally “Satisfied” with the service. One person told us they liked living at Sydney Brown Court as they could choose to spend time in private, in their own flat, but was able to socialise with other people if and when they wanted too.

We observed a group of people using the service, playing cards in a communal area. They told us they regularly enjoyed this activity over tea and biscuits. They also told us that they were looking forward to the Fete being held on the premises the following day and that they were taking part helping on a variety of stalls.

We spoke with four people who used the service. They told us that the staff were helpful, listened to and acted upon what they said and that they supported them in the ways that they preferred. The people spoken with told us that they had been consulted about the care and support that they were provided with. They told us that they were aware of the contents of their care plan and that they had a copy in their flats.

A person told us that the staff prompted them to take their medication. They also told us about the times that they were provided with personal care support and that the staff always stayed for the agreed time and did all the things that they were supposed to do.

Two people told us that when they used their call bell in an emergency the staff attended to them promptly.