You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 6 July 2019

About the 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 serv

Inspection areas



Updated 6 July 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 6 July 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 6 July 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 6 July 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 6 July 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.