This inspection took place on 4 August 2016. This was an announced inspection.

At the time of our last inspection in February 2014, Your Life (Sutton Coldfield) was found to be meeting all of the essential standards relating to the quality and safety of care.

Your Life (Sutton Coldfield) provides a domiciliary care service to people living in their own homes in a supported living complex called Poppy Court. At the time of our inspection, 13 people were receiving the regulated activity, personal care, from the provider.

There was not a registered manager in post at the time of our visit because the person who was registered to manage the service had recently left. However, the provider had appointed a new manager who was in the process of applying for their registration with us. 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.

The service was safe because people were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm and staff were aware of the processes they needed to follow. People were supported by enough members of staff who knew them well enough to ensure their needs were met. We also found that people received their prescribed medicines as required.

The service was effective because people received care from staff who had received adequate training and had the knowledge and skills they required to do their job effectively. People received care and support with their consent, where possible and people’s rights were protected because key processes had been fully followed to ensure people were not unlawfully restricted.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored to identify any risks associated with nutrition and hydration and they had food they enjoyed. People were also supported to maintain good health because staff worked closely with other health and social care professionals when necessary.

The service was caring because people were supported by staff that were friendly, caring and supportive. People received the care they wanted based on their personal preferences and likes and dislikes because staff took the time to get to know people well. People were also cared for by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were supported to express their views in all aspects of their lives including the care and support that was provided to them, as far as reasonably possible.

The service was responsive because people and their relatives felt involved in the planning and review of their care because staff communicated with them in ways they could understand. People were also encouraged to offer feedback on the quality of the service and knew how to complain.

The service was not always well led because the provider had some quality monitoring processes in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. However, it was not always clear how this information had been analysed or used to improve the service.

Staff felt supported and appreciated in their work and reported Your Life (Sutton Coldfield) to have an open and honest leadership culture.

The previous registered managers were no longer in post at Poppy Court at the time of our inspection. A new manager had been appointed but had not yet been registered. This service provided assistance to people that lived independently within their own home in Poppy Court. During our inspection we spoke with and looked at the care records of two people, spoke with two staff, looked at the files of four staff and spoke with the acting manager.

People spoken with told us that they were happy with the quality of the service provided and that their privacy and dignity was respected. One person told us, “On the whole it’s been very good.”

We saw that people living in Poppy Court were able to choose the provider they received support from. This showed that people were able to choose and consent to the services they received.

People told us they felt safe in the complex and had the support of their families if they needed to address any issues. We saw that there were systems in place to protect people from harm. Staff had been appropriately checked for suitability and systems were in place to ensure that staff had the skills and knowledge to protect vulnerable people.

There were systems in place to get people’s views about the service and to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service. This meant that people could make a complaint so that they received a service they were happy with.

We talked with all three people who were using the service when we visited on 16 May 2012. We looked at the care records of two people. We spoke with a member of staff and the manager on duty during our visit. This helped us to understand what it was like to use the service.

The people using the service told us that they were happy with the quality of the care provided. One person said the staff were “extremely nice” and “help is always on offer.” Another told us the staff were “very good. I’m very happy with the attention.”

People’s privacy and dignity were respected. The people we talked with all praised the staff. One person described them as “friendly, pleasant, helpful.” People were involved in discussions about their care and they had signed copies of their care plans, indicating they agreed with them.

People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their needs. People’s care plans set out what they did for themselves and what support staff should provide. The care and support provided to some people had changed over the past few months as their needs had changed.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and told us they felt safe when staff visited them.

Staff were trained and supervised. People told us the staff were “very knowledgeable and helpful.” Staff said the managers were “helpful and approachable.”

The provider had set up a quality monitoring system, which included asking people who were using the service and staff for their views. People said they could raise concerns if they were not happy and wanted something to be changed. One person said they had “all the confidence in the world in them.”