This inspection took place on 29 March and 4 April 2018 and was announced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and an expert by experience.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. This service provides care to older people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing. There were 39 people who received personal care from this service at the time of the inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At the last inspection in October 2015, the service was rated Good in all domains and at this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People continued to receive care from staff that were caring, kind and compassionate. People and their relatives spoke very highly of staff.

People told us they felt safe. All staff were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any concerns raised would be responded to. The registered manager knew how and when they should escalate concerns following the local authorities safeguarding protocols.

The registered provider had a system in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff continued to receive training to administer medicines safely.

People continued to receive care from staff who had the right knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

People's needs were assessed and their care was planned to maintain their safety, health and wellbeing.

There were systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and asked for people’s consent before providing care.

People continued to be supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them to maintain their independence where possible.

Staff told us there was good communication with the management of the service and they felt supported. Staff continued to have good levels of support and supervision to enable them to carry out their roles.

The provider had processes in place to monitor the delivery of the service. People's views were obtained through surveys, one-to-one meetings, meetings with people's families and social workers.

The provider had a process in place to enable them to respond to people and their concerns, investigate them and had taken action to address their concerns.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and told us they left drinks and snacks for people where required.

Staff told us that they seek the guidance from healthcare professionals as required. They told us they would speak with people's families and inform the management team if they had any concerns about people's health.

The management team were proactive in identifying continuous learning to drive improvements within the service.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. We found that people’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Although we found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We found that a risk assessment was missing for a person who needed bedrails.

People told us that the care they received from the agency was good and that the care workers followed the information on the care plan. One person told us that the care workers were, “Fantastic.”

We found that the provider was not meeting requirements in relation to Management of medicines because appropriate arrangements had not been made on two records for recording of how medicines were to be managed.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. However, we found that the multi-agency policy on safeguarding vulnerable adults was not available at the agency for staff to use. This policy provides information on the local arrangements for managing safeguarding concerns.

We found that here were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

There was an effective complaints system available and comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

This announced inspection took place on 16 and 22 October 2015.

Dorchester is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care and support for 47 people. The core hours of the service were 7am to 10pm.

The service had 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.

We found the provider had made improvements since our last inspection in 26,27, 28 February and 3 and 5 March 2014. Our previous inspection found that people were not protected from the risks associated with medicines and did not have sufficient quality monitoring systems. We asked the provider to take action. Following the inspection the provider wrote to us and told us they would make improvements. During this inspection we found improvements had been made.

There were quality monitoring systems in place. Quality checks were carried out weekly on medicine administration records and care records were checked two-three weekly. Any discrepancies were identified and resolved. Staff received training in the safe administration of medicines and the medicines policy had recently been updated.

People told us staff were kind and caring. They told us they always received their visits and they were not hurried or rushed. Staff talked compassionately about people and understood people’s individual likes and preferences. They were respectful they were in a person’s home and tidied up after their visits in a way which people and their families requested.

People were involved in making decisions about their care. They were involved in their initial assessment and subsequent care plan, they had annual reviews or sooner if needed. People felt listened to and told us their views were taken seriously.

People received personalised care from staff who knew peoples likes, dislikes and preferences. People were off were offered choices.

People knew how to raise concerns. They had enough information available to them which included their individual care plan and a schedule of which staff were due to visit and when. People usually had the same staff and had got to know them well. They told us staff have the right skills and know how to do their job well.

People and staff told us the registered manager was approachable and accessible. They spoke positively about the management team and told us there was always someone on call during hours of the service.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and they enjoyed their work. They received regular supervision and told us the registered manager was supportive. There were regular staff meetings.