This comprehensive inspection took place on 30 May and 5 June 2018 and was announced.

This service 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. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related

to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service were providing personal care to four people.

This was the provider’s first inspection since their registration

The service did not have a registered manager in place. At the time of the inspection the manager had submitted an application to the Commission to become registered. 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.

Although people’s medicines were administered as intended by the prescribing G.P, on the first day of the inspection we identified medicines administration records did not always contain sufficient information, in line with good practice. We shared our concerns with the manager, who on the second day of the inspection had developed a detailed medicine recording chart to remedy this issue. We were satisfied with the manager’s response.

The provider had developed risk management plans that were detailed and reviewed regularly, however guidance for staff on managing identified risks was not always clear. We raised our concerns with the manager on the first day of our inspection. On the second day of the inspection the manager had devised a clearer format enabling staff to swiftly identify guidance on mitigating those risks. We were satisfied with the manager’s response.

The provider did not have robust systems and processes in place to effectively monitor the service on the first day of the inspection. Auditing processes were not in place in relation to medicines management, risk assessments and care plans. We raised our concerns with the provider and on the second day of the inspection the provider had developed processes to ensure the overall governance of the service was regularly reviewed, monitored and action taken to drive improvement.

People were protected against the risk of abuse as staff received on-going training in safeguarding and were aware of the provider’s procedure in responding, reporting and escalating suspected abuse. Staff were aware of the provider’s safeguarding policy and were confident concerns raised would be acted upon in a timely manner.

People received care and support from sufficient numbers of familiar staff. The provider’s employment checks ensured staff were safe to work at the service, prior to delivering care. Staff received on-going training to effectively meet people’s needs. Training included, safeguarding, medicines management, Mental Capacity Act 2005 and moving and handling.

Staff were supported to reflect on their working practices through regular supervisions. Staff were also received support and guidance from the management team who were regularly available in the main office or on the phone at any time.

Staff and the manager were aware of their roles and responsibilities in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s consent to care and treatment was sought prior to care being delivered. People had their privacy respected and their dignity maintained and people and their relatives described staff as respectful, caring and excellent.

People were protected against the risk of cross contamination because the provider had systems and processes in place to manage infection control. Where agreed in people’s care packages, people received support from staff mem