This inspection took place on the 12 and 13 December 2016 and was announced.

Your Life Care Solutions is a supported living service which provides personal care to eighteen people in their own homes. The service comprises of four sites in the Colchester 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.

People were kept safe from the possible risk of harm. People’s behavioural needs had been identified and appropriate measures were in place to help staff to manage any behaviour which might have a negative impact upon others. They were treated with dignity and respect and cared for by staff who knew and understood their needs. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support, including choosing their menus. Their healthcare needs were assessed and the service worked closely with other professionals to ensure that people had the correct support to maintain their health and welfare. The provider had a safe system for the management and administration of medicines

People had their care needs assessed, reviewed and detailed in comprehensive and person-centred care plans. They were supported to pursue their social interests and hobbies and to participate in activities in and out of the service. There was a complaints policy in place to handle and resolve any complaints.

There were enough staff available to meet the needs of people using the service. All pre-employment checks were carried out by the provider to ensure that staff were recruited safely and were suitable for the post before commencing their role.

Staff had a comprehensive induction when they joined the service and received a variety of training which was relevant to their role. They showed understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and sought consent from people before providing care. Staff were regularly supervised and had their performance appraised by management. The staff team knew and understood people’s needs and had developed meaningful relationships with them. People were encouraged to work towards positive outcomes and objectives.

The service held residents meetings, sent satisfaction surveys and worked closely with other agencies involved in people’s care to ensure that they were satisfied with the service received. There was a robust system for quality assurance in place which identified improvements that could be made across the service. Staff were positive about the management and culture of the service and felt they were supported to develop. The systems in place for ensuring compliance and the knowledge base of the manager helped drive continual improvement in important areas.

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector who answered our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our conversations with the manager, three staff and three relatives and from looking at records. Where it was not possible to communicate with people who used the service we used our observations to gather information.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. Relatives commented, “The staff are good I have confidence in them. “

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Staff had received appropriate training and guidance.

Records contained detailed assessments of people's needs that had been carried out prior to them moving to the service. Any training needed for staff to support people safely was identified and provided prior to the person moving to the service and if their needs changed. This ensured that the staff had the relevant skills and knowledge required to meet the individual’s identified needs.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. One person said, “I feel my relative is safe here the staff are very responsive to their needs.”

Is the service effective?

It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people’s care and support needs and that they knew the people well. Relatives we spoke with told us that, “Staff had excellent knowledge about the people they support.”

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary needs had been identified in care plans where required. People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

The training that staff had received equipped them to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff were aware of people’s preferred method of communication such as pictures and symbols that they used to obtain people’s consent before providing care and treatment.

Is the service responsive?

The manager had regular contact with the relatives of people who used the service. People told us that they had specific agreements regarding frequency of contact. One relative told us, “The manager had agreed with me that they would text me daily updates about my [relative], which they have done.”

Monthly keyworker meetings took place where people had an opportunity to provide feedback on the service. We noted that the monthly keyworker report addressed any compliments or concerns raised by the people who used the service, relatives and feedback from professionals.

Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and that they received excellent support and supervision from the manager. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

There were five people using the service on the day of our inspection. We met with three of the people using the service and they confirmed to us that they were well and safe. Two people showed us their room. We saw that people were able to make independent daily choices around food and activities. During the inspection, one person went out to fetch a magazine from the local supermarket. Another person enjoyed the garden area and went to visit the nearby park. We spoke with the relatives of two people using the service. They both told us that they were happy with the service provided and that they were confident that any issues would be dealt with swiftly and transparently. One relative said, "The manager communicates frequently with us and I have peace of mind." Another stated, "Staff are good with my relative and so my relative has settled well."

We found that staff communicated with people well. Pictoral cards were used to help people make their own lifestyle choices. We saw evidence that people were supported to engage in the activities they preferred. During our inspection, one person requested to be driven to a nearby town to pick up shopping catalogues for their art work.

We saw that appropriate measures had been taken to ensure that staff employed were suitable to be working with vulnerable young adults. Training records demonstrated that staff had benefited from professional development which supported them to meet the needs of the people using the service.

There were two people using the service on the day of our inspection. They were unable to share their experiences with us in any great detail, although both people confirmed to us that they were happy and felt safe. One person showed us their room. Staff had supported them to purchase a treadmill and to use it everyday as part of their healthy lifestyle plan. We saw that people were able to make independent daily choices around food and activities. During the inspection, one person enjoyed the garden area and trampoline and told us they planned to visit the park later on. We spoke with the relative of a person using the service. They told us that staff were 'very good' and that their relative was 'well supported'.

We found that staff communicated with people well. Pictoral cards were used to help people make their own lifestyle choices. We saw evidence that people were supported to engage in the activities they preferred. During our inspection, one person requested to be driven to a nearby town to pick up shopping catalogues for their art work.

Staff had received mandatory and additional training which enabled them to support people with certain medical conditions. There were adequate numbers of staff available to give the right level of support to people currently using the service. We reviewed the way that medicines were managed and found that adequate safeguards were in place to administer people's medication.