About the service:

• Aspire Community Care & Support 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 the whole population. Not everyone using Aspire Community Care & Support receives a regulated activity; 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.

• The provider had one domiciliary care agency within their registration.

• At the time of the inspection it was providing a service to six people.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People were protected against avoidable harm, abuse, neglect and discrimination. The care they received was safe.

• People's risks were assessed and strategies put in place to reduce the risks.

• People's likes, preferences and dislikes were assessed and care packages met people's desired expectations.

• People and their relatives provided positive feedback about the care, staff and management. They said the service was caring, timely, effective and well-led.

•People 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.

• People's care was person-centred. The care was designed to ensure people's independence was encouraged and maintained.

• People and their relatives were involved in the care planning and review of their care.

• The service had a stable management structure. The provider had implemented systems to ensure they continuously measured the safety of people's care and quality of the service.

Rating at last inspection:

• Requires Improvement (report published on 18 January 2018)

Why we inspected:

• All services rated "requires improvement" are re-inspected within one year of our prior inspection.

• This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up:

• We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The inspection took place on 5 December 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice as they are a small domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure someone would be in.

The service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults and adults with learning disabilities and people with physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to five people.

This was the first inspection of this location. They registered to provide personal care from this location in March 2017.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Care plans and risk assessments were inconsistent. Although some contained a high level of detail to inform care staff how to meet people’s needs and keep them safe, others lacked detail. There was insufficient information available to staff about how to respond to health related emergencies.

Staff were recruited in a way that ensured they were suitable to work in a care setting and were provided with training and support to help them perform in their roles. However, there were not enough staff employed to ensure staff could have days off or to cover staff absences.

People who had capacity to consent to their care had indicated their consent by signing consent forms. However, where people lacked capacity to consent to their care the provider had not followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. We have made a recommendation about following the principles of the MCA.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to seek feedback from people, their relatives and staff. Care plans and people’s experience of care were reviewed regularly. However, actions had not always been completed following incidents or feedback being received. We have made a recommendation about ensuring the effectiveness of quality assurance systems.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as there were clear processes in place to safeguard people from harm. Relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe with staff. Staff were knowledgeable about the action they should take if they were concerned about abuse.

The provider completed comprehensive needs assessments and planned care to be delivered in a person centred way. Care plans contained details of people’s personal history, cultural background and religious beliefs including details of how care workers should support people in these areas. The provider did not explore people’s sexual orientation and the impact this had on their experience of care. We have made a recommendation about ensuring sexual orientation is considered in care assessments.

Care plans contained information about people’s routine healthcare needs and details of healthcare professionals involved in people’s support.

Relatives told us they were confident staff could support their family members with their healthcare needs. People were supported with their medicines and this was managed in a safe way.

People were supported to eat and drink in line with their preferences.

Relatives told us care workers demonstrated a caring and compassionate attitude. Care workers spoke about the people they supported with kindness and affection.

The provider had clear systems in place to ensure people were supported at the end of their lives in a way that reflected their preferences.

Relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and found the provider was supportive and listened to their feedback. There was a clear values base to the organisation with a credible and