We inspected the service on 7 and 8 December 2016 and the visit was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of our inspection because we needed to be sure somebody would be available.

Archangel Home care – Staffordshire Branch provides personal care and support for people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 75 people were receiving personal care and support.

There was a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People felt safe with the support offered from staff. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect them from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed which gave staff guidance about how to support people to reduce the likelihood of harm. Where an accident or incident did occur, the registered manager took action to prevent reoccurrences wherever possible. The provider had plans in place to support people to remain safe during emergencies such as a shortage of staff.

People and their relatives were satisfied with the number of staff available to offer them care and support. The number of staff the provider employed was enough to provide the care that was planned for each person. Prospective staff were checked before they worked for the provider for their suitability.

Where people required support to take their prescribed medicines, this was undertaken in a safe way by staff who had received guidance. Staff knew their responsibilities when handling people’s medicines including what to do should a mistake occur.

Some staff felt that improvements could be made to the training offered to them so that they could practice the skills they required. The provider told us they would make improvements to offer staff training that was undertaken by a trainer rather than on a computer. The registered manager told us they would make improvements to the records of the induction staff received as these were not in place.

People’s food and drink was monitored where this was required to make sure they had enough. People received support to monitor their health where this was required.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Act including what might constitute restrictions to people’s freedom. People were asked for their consent when care and support was offered.

People received support from staff who were kind and offered compassionate care. Their privacy and dignity was protected when receiving care and support. People’s privacy was not always protected as their care records were not always stored carefully. The registered manager took action on the day of our visit to improve this.

Staff knew the people they offered care and support to as people’s care plans contained information on their life histories which staff could describe. People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. For example, staff encouraged people to do tasks with them where this was important to them.

People were involved and contributed to the planning and review of their support so that this was centred on them as individuals. People had care plans that contained information for staff to follow on their likes, dislikes and routines that were important to them.

People were mainly satisfied with the regularity and punctuality of the staff that offered them care and support. The provider was improving on the punctuality of care calls people received and was working with the local authority to make sure that this occurred.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. This was because the provider had a compl

We undertook this inspection following concerns received from the local commissioners. During the inspection we spoke with people who used the service, their relatives, care staff and staff that worked in the office.

Most people told us they were satisfied with the care they received. People were more satisfied when they had regular care workers. They told us that regular care staff provided the care they wanted. Comments included: "On the whole good" and "I have four visits a day and nothing is too much trouble".

Assessments of people's needs were completed and a plan of care was available to staff. This made sure that care workers had the information to provide appropriate care.

Records of care generally showed that people received the care as it was outlined in their plan of care. There were a few gaps in some medication and food charts. This meant that the provider could not be sure appropriate care had always been provided.

People did not always receive their care at the time agreed when their care was planned. Times of care were changed and this was not always reflected in the rosters. This meant that care may not be provided at the time the person expected and could affect adversely their wellbeing.

We inspected Archangel Home Care on a planned announced inspection. We had informed the manager two days prior to the visit to ensure that someone would be available to facilitate the inspection. We used an expert by experience to speak with people who used the service or their representatives.

We found and people told us that their care and welfare needs were being met. One person said: “Carers are very reliable, a good group of staff”.

We saw records that confirmed staff knew what constituted abuse and what to do if they suspected abuse had taken place.

We found the service followed the correct procedures when recruiting new staff and they were supported to fulfil their role effectively.

We saw that the service had implemented quality monitoring systems but not all systems were effective in maintaining the service delivery.