Affinity Homecare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger adults with a disability.

At our last inspection we rated the service good, with requires improvement rating in well led. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and it was good in all domains. 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.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The provider had improved their quality audits to ensure that all care plans and risk assessments were up to date in people’s homes. Other quality systems were effective in highlighting improvements and also monitored that people received their calls on time and for the allocated time.

People continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to meet their needs and they were recruited to ensure that they were safe to work with people. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely. Lessons were learnt from when things went wrong.

The care that people received continued to be effective. They 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 received training and support to be able to care for people well. They monitored people’s health; including in partnership with other organisations when needed. Some people were also supported to eat and drink and this was monitored and recorded.

People continued to have positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect and kindness. Staff knew them well and understood how to care for them in a personalised way. There were plans in place which detailed people’s care and goals and these were regularly reviewed. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they received.

People and their relatives were included in developing the service and found the registered manager approachable.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We inspected this service on 21 January 2016. This was an announced inspection and we telephoned 48 hours’ prior to our inspection in order to arrange home visits with people who use the service. Our last inspection took place in January 2014 and the provider was found to be meeting the legal requirements we looked at.

Affinity Homecare UK provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in Burntwood and the surrounding areas. At the time of our visit, 34 people were receiving a service. There was a registered manager at the service. 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 provider had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service to identify shortfalls and drive improvement. However, improvements were needed to ensure care plans were accurate and kept up to date.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with staff. Staff recognised their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and were confident the registered manager would take action if they raised any concerns. People were protected against the risk of abuse, as checks were made to confirm staff were of good character to work with people in their own homes. Sufficient staff were available to meet people's needs.

People received personalised support and were happy with how the staff supported them. Most people had staff who knew them well and had the skills to meet their needs. Staff told us they felt valued and supported by the management. Staff supported people to manage their health care needs and ensured they were referred to health care professionals if their needs changed. People received their medicine and were supported to apply any creams they needed. People’s needs and preferences were met when they were supported with their dietary needs and people were supported to follow their hobbies and interests.

Staff gained people’s consent before providing care and support and understood their responsibilities to support people to make their own decisions. Staff treated people in a caring way, respected their privacy and promoted their independence.

People knew how to raise a complaint and felt confident their concerns would be acted on. People were encouraged to give their feedback on the service in order that the provider could make improvements to the service where needed.

.

This inspection was completed as part of our scheduled programme. We told the provider we were visiting one day in advance. This was to make sure that people we needed to speak with were available. During this inspection we spoke with people that used the service, care staff, office staff and the manager.

Everyone we spoke with said that they had confidence in the care workers. They said that they received care in a safe and appropriate way. People said they were treated with respect and dignity. Comments included: "Very polite and respectful" and "Very good. I am very happy".

The majority of people said they had regular care workers who arrived at the agreed time. Those that didn't have regular care workers were less happy but said that they were satisfied with the care each care worker provided.

Plans of care were specific to each person and provided comprehensive information about people's needs and lifestyle preferences. Most plans were reviewed and kept up to date.

Care staff were trained in making sure people were kept safe. They knew what action to take if they had any concerns over people's welfare.

The provider had an effective recruitment procedure in place but not all recruitment processes were fully recorded.

People were asked about the service they received. Checks were made on the quality of the service. Where shortfalls were identified these were acted upon to improve the care people received.

We carried out this inspection visit after we received concerns from an anonymous caller about Affinity Homecare Limited. The concerns we received told us that people’s information was not properly protected. We were told that a member of the agency staff had left a folder containing confidential information about people who used the service in a person’s home. We were told that this information was lost and never found. The caller also told us that new staff are allocated work before the outcome of their CRB is received.

We spoke with the agency manager/owner and the deputy manager about their recruitment procedures. They showed us information that confirmed that their recruitment procedures were robust and always followed. We spoke with a member of staff who had recently been employed by the agency and we looked at the recruitment process for five staff recently recruited. Discussions we had with the managers, the member of staff and information in the staff files showed that appropriate recruitment procedures were in place.

We spoke with the managers and a member of staff about the procedures in place to ensure the security of information held about people who used the service. Information we received and looked at showed that procedures were in place to ensure the protection and security of people’s confidential information. We spoke with stakeholders who told us that they had not received any concerns about confidential information being lost.

We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using the service.

We spoke with three people who used the services provided by the agency. We spoke with one of the owners of Affinity Homecare limited, two senior care staff and one care staff.

People told us that they received a visit from one of the senior care staff from the agency to assess their needs before they started using the service. People told us that the care and service they received from agency staff matched the care they had requested and agreed. People told us that they had a copy of the care and support plan in their home.

The three people we spoke with told us they felt comfortable talking to the manager or any member of staff if they felt things could be improved. They told us that they felt confident that their concerns would be listened to.

Three people told us they were happy with the support they received and that it made a difference to their everyday living. People told us that they were treated with respect and that care staff maintained their privacy and dignity. For example two people told us that care staff always made sure the door to the bedroom or bathroom door was closed before they helped them to have a wash.

One person told us that if care staff were delayed, they would be advised of the delay and when to expect the call. The two other people we spoke with told us that they were not always informed if care staff were running late.

The people we spoke with told us that they felt safe and happy with the staff that visited them. Comments we received included "I have no complaints, I am happy with everything, the care staff are kind” "They are excellent people". One person told us that they usually had the same carers. The other two people told us that the care staff that visited them often changed. People felt that this was because people do not stay in the job for long.

In response to the concerns expressed by people about having different care staff, the managers for the agency told us that they had looked at introducing key workers. This would mean that people received care and support from the same group of care staff.

We saw that systems were in place to monitor the quality of care that people had received. Two of the three people we spoke with told us that they had received questionnaires that asked them their views on the service they received. Questionnaires and letters we read showed that people had been positive in the responses they made.