We undertook an announced inspection of Classic Home Care Services Limited on 10 November 2016. We told the provider two working days before our visit that we would be coming because the location provided a domiciliary care service for people in their own homes and the registered manager and staff might be not be available to assist with the inspection if they were out visiting people.

Classic Home Care Services Limited provides a range of services to people in their own home including personal care. They covered two geographical area of Surrey, one included Epsom and Cheam, and the other Ashtead, Leatherhead, Bookham and Fetcham. People using the service had a range of needs such as learning and/or physical disabilities and dementia. The service offered support to people over the age of 18 years old. At the time of our inspection 100 people were receiving personal care in their home. Most people were paying for their own care, but five people were funded by their local authority.

The service was last inspected on 12 November 2013, where we found that the provider was meeting all the standards we inspected.

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 risks to people's wellbeing and safety had been assessed, and there were detailed plans in place for all the risks identified.

There were procedures for safeguarding adults and the care workers were aware of these. Care workers knew how to respond to any medical emergencies or significant changes in a person's wellbeing.

Feedback from people and their relatives was positive. Most people said they had regular care workers visiting which enabled them to build a rapport and get to know them.

People's needs were assessed by the provider or, in some cases, by the local authority prior to receiving a service and support plans were developed from the assessments. People had taken part in the planning of their care and received regular visits from the care managers.

People we spoke with and their relatives said that they were happy with the level of care they were receiving from the service.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in line with the requirements of the

Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and told us that all staff had received training in this. People had consented to their care and support and had their capacity assessed prior to receiving a service from Classic Home Care Services Limited. Nobody was being deprived of their liberty unlawfully at the time of our inspection.

There were systems in place to ensure that people received their medicines safely and the care workers had received training in the management of medicines.

The service employed enough staff to meet people's needs safely and had contingency plans in place in the event of staff absence. Recruitment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they supported people unsupervised.

People's health and nutritional needs had been assessed, recorded and were being monitored.

Care workers received an induction and shadowing period before delivering care and support to people. They received the training and support they needed to care for people.

There was a complaints procedure in place which the provider followed. People felt confident that if they raised a complaint, they would be listened to and their concerns addressed.

There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality and effectiveness of the service, and the provider ensured that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

People, staff and relatives told us that the registered manager and senior team were approachable and supportive. There was a cl

The service had been developed in response to the needs and wishes of people to be supported to remain living in their own homes.

We spoke with a young person with high needs and they told us about the service, ' they are the best.’

Another person told us that they had a lot of visits a day and 'sometimes I get a complete stranger to the door but the carers themselves are very good'.

A relative we spoke with told us ' the carers know exactly what to do, I'm quite happy .. it's very safe'.

Another relative told us the person they cared for chose the provider and employed them direct- 'they are doing very well'.

A member of staff told us that they got to understand about people's choices and preferences by listening to them, ' most people can communicate their needs, I also observe body language. I get to know people, their habits and routines. I can tell if they are in distress.'

Another member of staff told us that 'the matching is good here -they try to match the person with the right carer'.

We spoke with a person in receipt of a live in package who told us 'the service is very good and when the carer has a holiday everything still runs very smoothly'.

One member of staff told us 'things in the care world often change and the training is very helpful'.

We found that supervision and support for staff was readily available. The service was monitored and checked to assure quality and safety. People‘s views and experiences were important to the service.

When we arrived we were met by the registered owner who was also one of the directors. She told us that the service was currently offered to approximately 100 people.

We looked at how the provider ensured that people who used the service and their relatives were able to give their consent to care and treatment. We found that people led the care process and that carers would always respect their wishes.

We looked at how the provider ensured people’s care was being planned and managed effectively, and whether people were happy with the quality of care they were receiving. We found that people who used the service and their relatives were happy with the quality of the service, and an effective care planning process was in place.

We found that staff were able to identify abuse and able to report it without fear of recrimination.

There were enough suitably qualified people to provide a safe and effective service. We found that over 50% of the staff had a relevant care qualification and that there were effective staffing schedules in place.

The provider conducted annual quality assurance surveys and had regular staff meetings, but did not appear to conduct regular whole service reviews.

We spoke with people who use the service or their representative and all spoke positively about the service received.

People made comments such as "they were involved in the planning of their own care packages", A carer said that "the flexibility of care provided by the service", "the flexibility and levels of care their relative receives gives them peace of mind and allows them to plan for the future knowing they can depend on the agency".

One person who uses the service stated that the care shown to them by the care workers was "phenomenal and they only have our needs and welfare at heart".

All the carers and people who use the service that spoke with us felt that they were safe and at ease with the carers that visit them. Everyone who we spoke with all felt that they knew how and to whom they should contact if they were unhappy with the service or felt unsure or worried.

Six people who use the service, their carers or their representative, told us they had completed survives that were provided to them to give their views about the quality of the service offered by the agency.

Overall the people who use this service stated that they experience a good quality of care from the agency.