YourLife (Seaford)

YourLife (Seaford) is a domiciliary care service located within a private housing development. It provides personal care to older people living in their own flats. People's flats were within the development, and people also had access to communal areas such as a lounge, garden and onsite restaurant. YourLife (Seaford) provides personal care to some of the people who live in the development who need additional care and support, and at the time of our inspection there were six people using the service. In addition to providing personal care the service was responsible for some facilities management for the development, and YourLife (Seaford) staff also worked in the restaurant and provided cleaning services for the communal areas and in people's homes. This part of the service is not regulated by the Care Quality Commission and was not part of this inspection.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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 previous registered manager had left and the new manager was currently registering with us.

The service was last inspected on the 11 and 16 May 2017, where we found areas that required improvement. The service was not always effective, there was a risk people would receive care and support from staff who had not had their skills assessed. Staff had not been properly supported with supervision and appraisal. The service was not always responsive, people knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern, but if they did their concerns were not always acted on. The service was not always well led, although there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service they were not always effective. The registered manager had not always been clear about their role. The service received an overall rating of Requires Improvement. At this inspection it was evident that improvements had been made.

People received care from staff that had received the right training and support to carry out their roles. Staff were well supported by the manager and one to one supervisions and observations of their practice took place. Training records confirmed staff received a detailed induction and regular training updates when required.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in accordance with their assessed needs and wishes. Records showed that people were involved in the assessment process and their on-going care reviews. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.

The service had an open culture that encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff

were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and this was used to drive continuous improvement. The manager and provider had quality assurance systems to review all aspects of the service to also drive up improvement.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and staff received training in their responsibilities to safeguard people. Risks relating to people's care were reduced as the provider assessed and managed risks effectively.

People's medicines were managed safely by staff. People were supported by staff who the provider checked were suitable to work with them. In addition, there were enough staff to care for people.

Staff supported people to attend appointments with healthcare professionals and worked in partnership with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care and support. Staff supported people to make healthy dietary choices to maintain their health and well-being.

People's consent was sought before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. 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 support this practice.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know people. People were happy with the way that staff provided their care and support and they were encouraged to make decisions about how they wanted their care to be provided.

The manager was visible and approachable and we received positive feedback about the management of the service from people, relatives and staff.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found