This inspection took place on 21 and 24 April 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because they provides domiciliary care and we needed to be sure someone would be in the office to facilitate the inspection. This was the first inspection undertaken at the service since registering with the Care Quality Commission.

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.

The service had appropriate systems and procedures in place which sought to protect people who used the service from abuse. The service had a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy in place and this told staff what action to take if they had any concerns.

We found the care and support records of people who used the service were comprehensive, well organised and easy to follow and included a range of risk assessments to keep people safe from harm.

We found there were robust recruitment procedures in place and required checks were undertaken before staff began to work for the service.

We looked at how the service managed people’s medicines and found that suitable arrangements were in place to ensure that people who used the service were safe. We looked at the medicines administration record (MAR) charts for people when we visited them in their own homes and found that these had all been completed correctly and were up to date.

There was an appropriate up to date accident and incident policy and procedure in place.

People who used the service told us they felt that staff had the right skills and training to do their job. New staff were given an employee handbook at the start of their employment which identified the principles and values underpinning the service.

Staff were given a copy of the organisation’s policies and procedures which were available electronically or in paper format and staff knowledge of these policies and procedures was tested out at supervision meetings and as part of the process of induction.

Staff told us they felt they had received sufficient training to undertake their role competently. Records showed staff had completed training in a range of areas, including dementia, safeguarding, first aid, medicines, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, infection control and health and safety.

Staff received supervision and appraisal from their manager and a record was maintained of all staff supervisions that had taken place.

Before any care and support was given consent was obtained from the person who used the service or their representative.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that staff were kind and treated them with dignity and respect.

Support planning documentation e enabled staff to capture information to ensure people from different cultural groups received the appropriate help and support they needed to lead fulfilling lives and meet their individual and cultural needs.

People who used the service had a care plan that was personal to them with copies held at both the person’s own home and in the office premises. The structure of the care plan was clear and information was easy to access. Regular reviews of care needs were undertaken by the manager of the service.

Cherish Homecare Services is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The services provided by the agency include personal care, community support, meal preparation, shopping and domestic help.

At the time of our inspection there were 10 people who used the service. As part of the inspection we spoke to five people who used the service, four relatives and friends and five members of staff.

Our inspection was co-ordinated and carried out by an inspector, who addressed our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they had no concerns about their personal safety.

We found safeguarding procedures were robust and staff demonstrated they understood how to safeguard people they supported.

People told us that they felt their privacy and dignity was respected by staff. One relative told us; “My X is definitely safe with them. The service was recommended to me and they are very good with my X.”

We found people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified were people are protected.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them. People said that their care plans reflected their current needs

.

We found that personal care plans were regularly reviewed to meet changing needs.

We found the service did not have appropriate arrangements in place to ensure staff received appropriate professional development through regular supervision and appraisals.

We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to professional development of staff through the implementation of supervision and appraisals.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service and relatives told us they or their loved ones were supported by kind and dedicated staff. Comments included; “Care they give is great.” “On the whole I’m very happy with the service.” “From what I’ve seen the girls are very nice and friendly. X is very happy which makes me very content.” “I personally think it runs very well. The manager has done a lot more than you would expect.” “Have no complaints about them at all.”

When speaking with staff it was clear that they knew the needs of each person they supported.

We found care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes and consent.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. There were no recorded complaints against the service at the time of our visit.

Is the service well-led?

The service had quality assurance systems to ensure high standards of care were maintained. Problems and concerns were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they felt supported by the service and were clear about their roles and responsibilities.