We carried out a review of the data available to us about Your Life (Royston) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Your Life (Royston), you can give feedback on this service.
Your Life (Royston) operates an assisted living scheme in a purpose-built private development called Goodes Court. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own flats. It provides a service to older adults. The development consists of 52 flats privately owned and occupied by older people who also share some communal areas and facilities; such as dining rooms, lounges and gardens.
Not everyone using Your Life (Royston) receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their relatives said they felt the service provided was safe. Staff understood the action to take if they suspected harm or abuse. People were protected from risks associated with their care needs because care plans guided staff to support people in a way that reduced identified risks. People told us that enough staff were available to meet their care and support needs and that their care was provided regularly and on time. The registered manager said they could respond very quickly in terms of providing additional care hours if a person’s needs escalated.
The provider operated robust recruitment procedures and checks to help ensure staff were suitable to work at the service. People’s medicines were managed safely, and people received them as prescribed. Staff had access to cleaning products and equipment such as gloves to support people to keep their homes clean and free from infection. The provider had a system to analyse incidents and accidents, and this was used to identify themes and learning.
Staff assessed, and documented people's needs and preferences in relation to their care and planned support based on this. People and their relatives said staff were trained to do their jobs well. Staff received supervision and competency observations to help ensure they had the knowledge to perform their job roles. People’s dietary needs and requirements were identified in their care plans and staff had a good understanding of how to support people with these.
Staff and the management team worked well with other professionals for the benefit of people who used the service. Information was shared appropriately with external professionals to help ensure people received consistent care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff communicated with people in a kind and respectful manner. Staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. People and relatives told us they felt people were treated fairly and were free from discrimination. People’s care plans showed they were consulted about changes to their care and these were documented. People were able to choose how and where they spent their day either in their own apartments or together with other homeowners in the comfortable and pleasant communal areas. People were supported to take part in activities based on their interests to help reduce the risk of social isolation.
The service had a complaints and compliments policy, this was available in different formats for people to use. People and their relatives told us they would be confident to raise anything of concern with the management team. People were supported to stay in their own home and receive end of life care if they chose to do so, and extra support was put in place by the service to facilitate this when needed.
The registered manager and staff knew people and their families well which enabled positive relationships to develop and good outcomes for people living at Goodes Court. Systems were in place to monitor and evaluate services provided. Concerns, incidents, accidents and notifications were reviewed by the provider’s senior management team to analyse and identify trends and risks, to prevent re-occurrence and improve quality.
The roles of management and the staff team were clearly defined and understood. The provider had developed effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Systems were in place to learn from accidents, incidents and complaints. The service worked closely with other agencies to help ensure good outcomes for people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection the service was rated as Good. (Last report published 27 October 2016)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were supported by Your Life Royston to live in their own homes at Goodes Court with staff that supported people’s needs.
People felt safe, happy and were looked after in their homes. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report concerns both internally and externally. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to help ensure that all staff were suitably qualified and experienced.
Staff completed regular health and safety checks that included security and fire safety.
Staff received training and refresher updates relevant to their roles and had regular supervision meetings to discuss and review their development and performance. People and their relatives were positive about the skills, experience and abilities of the staff.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary.
Staff made considerable efforts to ascertain people’s wishes and obtain their consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way. Information about other care providers was available to people to ensure people had choice.
Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they supported and clearly knew them well. People were involved in the planning, delivery and reviews of the care and support provided. The confidentiality of information held about their medical and personal histories was securely maintained throughout their home and in the office.
Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. People received personalised care and support that met their needs and took account of their preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s background histories, preferences, routines and personal circumstances.
People were supported to pursue social interests and take part in meaningful activities relevant to their needs, both at their home and in the wider community. They felt that staff listened to them and responded to any concerns they had in a positive way. Complaints were recorded and investigated thoroughly with learning outcomes used to make improvements where necessary.
Relatives and staff were complimentary about the registered manager and how the service was run and operated. Appropriate steps were taken to monitor the quality of services provided, reduce potential risks and drive improvement.
People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support they received. One person we spoke with told us: "They are a lovely lot. I can't praise them [the staff] highly enough". People told us that they felt they were treated with dignity and respect, and involved in the planning of their care.
Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's care and support needs and we observed staff speaking with people in an attentive and polite way.
Care plans we looked at were person centred. Some records we looked at provided detailed information for staff about people care and support needs. However other records did not provide sufficient information for staff to ensure that they were able to meet people's assessed care needs safely.
Records we looked at showed that people's medicines were administered to them in a safe way.
Overall, staff we spoke with told us that they felt well supported and had received the training they needed to do their job.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. One person we spoke with told us that staff listened to people and were: "Always open to suggestions".
There were safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from harm. Staff had received training and they were clear about their responsibility in reporting any incidents or allegations of abuse.
There were induction programmes and mandatory training in place to ensure that staff were competent to deliver care. Supervision was regularly provided to staff to monitor their work performance and development needs.
Quality assurance procedures were in place to monitor the running of the agency and people using the service were able to raise any issues and concerns with the management team.