We found that people were satisfied with how their medicines were given to them. Staff understood the individual medicine requirements of the people they cared for.
We found that improvements had been made in the way that the quality of the service was checked and improved.
Records contained some improvements since the previous inspection. However, we found that records were not always updated in a timely manner.
At our previous inspection of 7 January 2013, the provider was non compliant in all five outcomes we looked at.
During the inspection process we spoke with six people who used the service, one relative, the registered manager, care specialist, location manager and five care staff.
People were provided with information about the service provided by the agency and what they could expect.
Care plans provided staff with basic information about people's assessed needs and how to meet them. One person who used the service said, 'I know that I have a care plan but I don't know what is in it.'
We found that the management of people's prescribed medicines were unsafe and placed people at risk of not receiving their medicines as directed by the prescriber.
We found staff had training and support to make sure they could meet the needs the people they were caring for. One relative said, 'The care staff are very good.'
The service's quality assurance monitoring tools were not entirely robust to ensure people received an effective service.
People who used the service did not have access to relevant information about the services available to them. One person who used the service said, 'No one from Langley Court assessed me or asked how I would like to be cared for.'
We spoke with three people who used the service who said they were satisfied with the care provided to them. One person said, 'The staff are alright and I have no complaints.' However, we found that care plans and risk assessments were not always in place to support staff's understanding about people's care needs and the support they required.
There were inadequate systems in place to ensure the safe management of people's medicines.
We were not provided with sufficient evidence to show that all staff had received appropriate training to ensure they had the skills and competence to care for people. Staff did not receive regular supervision to ensure they were supported to carry out their role efficiently.
We found that there was a lack of quality assurance monitoring systems in place to protect people from the risk of inappropriate care and treatment.