Emmandjay Court

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff were kind, caring and had a good knowledge of people which they used to deliver personalised care. People told us they were treated with respect and staff had a high regard for protecting their privacy and dignity. Staff demonstrated they were dedicated to providing personalised care and support.

People received visits at consistent times and from staff who were familiar to them. A low turnover of staff meant people received consistent care and were able to develop positive relationships with the staff who cared for them.

Staff supported and encouraged people to prepare and consume foods and drinks which met peoples’ individual preferences.

Staff managed risk in a proactive and personalised way. Staff were skilled in identifying changes, risks and concerns with people’s health and worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure people maintained good health.

Overall medicines were managed safely, although some improvements were needed to the documentation of medicine support provided.

People were asked for their views about the care they received and how the service should be operated. Staff listened to and acted upon peoples’ views to ensure they provided a personalised and responsive service.

Staff were recruited safely to help ensure they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. There were enough staff to ensure a reliable and consistent service was provided. A new wellbeing worker role provided additional support if there was an incident. Staff received appropriate support and training to undertake their role.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and where issues were identified they took action to make improvements.

People and staff provided very positive feedback about the new registered manager. We saw they had implemented some positive improvements to the service and were committed to ensuring the quality of care continuously improved.

The provider had clear values and staff were true to these values in their day to day work.

We found all fundamental standards were being met. Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Our previous inspection of this service took place in May 2014. The service was found to be compliant with all of the legal requirements inspected at that time.

Emmandjay Court provides a personal care service to people living in their own flats. This enables people living at the Emmandjay Court private housing complex to maintain their independence and stay in their own home. The main office is situated on the ground floor of the housing complex which is situated in the village of Ben Rhydding, close to Ilkley town centre. On the day of our inspection 17 people received personal care from this service.

The registered manager had been in post for several years. 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.

Records and procedures for the safe administration of medicines were in place and being followed.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and plans were put in place to try and reduce such risks. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to help reduce the likelihood of abuse going unnoticed and help protect people from the risk of abuse.

Action had been taken to address the staffing issues which had affected the consistency of care for people between July and September 2015. People told us things had now significantly improved and at the time of our inspection we found sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to ensure people received punctual and consistent care.

Staff received effective training and development to ensure care was delivered by suitably skilled and experienced staff.

People’s individual dietary needs and preferences were planned for and met. Staff worked in partnership with a range of health professionals to ensure people maintained good health.

Staff sought consent from people and had a good awareness of the people they supported and their capacity to make decisions.

Care records contained appropriate information to ensure staff could provide people with safe and person centred care. Staff had a good knowledge of the people they supported which demonstrated they had read and understood people’s care plans.

People told us staff were kind, caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff actively sought opportunities to help promote people’s independence.

People were regularly asked for their views in relation to how they preferred their care and support to be delivered. We saw people’s wishes and preferences were respected and where people raised concerns or complaints they were listened to and staff tried to make improvements to the quality of care provided.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. This included regular audits, care plan reviews and seeking people’s feedback. When areas for improvement were identified action was taken to address any shortfalls.

People and staff spoke positively of the registered manager and the leadership they provided. Staff had a good awareness of how they translated the provider’s values into their day to day work. The entire staff team demonstrated a philosophy of care which put the people who used the service first and were passionate about delivering high quality, person centred care.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

At the time of our visit there were 16 people who used the service. We spoke with four people and they all told us they felt safe when staff visited them.

Each person's care file had risk assessments which covered areas of potential risk such as falls and moving and handling. When people were identified as being at risk, their plans showed the actions required to manage these risks.

The staff we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe the different ways people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.

We found there were relevant recruitment procedures in place to ensure appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

Is the service effective?

People had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. We found people and/or their representatives were involved in the assessment and planning of their health and care needs. This meant people could be assured their individual care needs and wishes were identified and planned for.

The staff we spoke with understood how to appropriately obtain people's consent before they supported them. The four people we spoke with told us staff were respectful and asked their permission before they provided support. One person said staff were 'very respectful that this is my home and that I have particular way I like things to be done'.

Is the service caring?

Overall people said they were pleased with the standard of care provided. One person told us 'staff are approachable, caring and always there when I need them'. Our discussions with people and the records we looked at told us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected.

We found the care staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people's needs and were able to explain how individuals preferred their care and support to be delivered.

Is the service responsive?

Care records were reviewed and any changes made either when people's needs changed or as part of the six monthly review process. We saw evidence of this within the care records we reviewed. We also saw people and their representatives attended care reviews and were given the opportunity to raise any concerns and suggest changes to how their care and support was provided. The staff we spoke with told us they would immediately commence a care review if they noticed a change in people's needs.

Is the service well-led?

We saw there was a quality assurance monitoring system in place that was designed to continually monitor and identify shortfalls in the service and any non-compliance with the essential standards of quality and safety.

Information from the analysis of accidents and incidents had been used to identify changes and improvements to minimise the risk of them happening again.

Overall, people's personal care records and other records, such as staff files, were accurate and complete.

People who used the service told us if there were any problems they felt able to raise these with staff and were confident they would be listened to.