This inspection took place on 20 September 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to visit the office, talk to staff and review records.

The service is registered with CQC to provide personal care and support to children and young people up to the age of 18 in their own homes, mainly in and around the north Derbyshire area. Although the service also supports children from its office base at The Outback, this aspect of the service did not form part of this inspection. At the time of this inspection four young people received support from the service.

The service is required to have a registered manager. 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 manager had been in post for three months and had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become a registered manager.

Medicines were administered by staff, however records of medicines administration were not kept in line with the provider’s expectations.

Policies and procedures were in place. The registered manager confirmed some policies, such as the medicines policy for the overall service, would be developed to be specific to staff administering medicines in people’s own homes.

Systems and processes designed to check on the quality and safety of services were in place and further checks were being developed. The registered manager understood where shortfalls in the service were and took action to address those. This included shortfalls in risk assessments.

People told us they felt safe with the care provided by the service. Staff we spoke with had received training in safeguarding people and understood how to report any safeguarding concerns.

Staff recruitment and deployment was managed safely. Some people had not received a service when the member of staff who provided their support had not been at work. Additional staff had now been recruited to ensure the service could, in the near future, ensure sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s needs.

People were cared for by staff that were respectful and caring. Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they cared for. Staff supported people with their independence and promoted people’s dignity and privacy. People were involved in planning their care and support.

The registered manager understood how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 related to people using the service. For children under 16, the registered manager ensured consent to their care and support was obtained in line with guidance.

People received support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Although staff did not support people with their nutrition and hydration needs, information on these needs was available to help staff understand people. People were supported to access other healthcare provision when required.

People were supported to raise any worries or concerns. People received personalised and responsive care and their views and preferences were respected.

The service promoted an open and inclusive culture. The registered manager demonstrated an open and inclusive style of leadership.

There were three children receiving personal care in their own home from the Outback Provision at the time of the inspection.

Due to verbal communication difficulties , we were not able to speak directly with the children , but spoke with one family who use the service.

We were told that the service was excellent, brilliant and they could not manage without them. We were told they liked their care worker and the Outback care staff treated their children with respect and they were involved in all key decisions.

We found that there were effective recruitment and selection procedures in place.

We also found that care staff had worked there for a long time, care staff said they “had the best job ever.”

Families told us they were happy with the service and the care workers were very professional in their work.

We found that the service had good procedures in place for the safe handling and administration of medication.

We found that they provision had a robust complaints procedure and children and young people views were listened to and acted upon.

Due to verbal communication difficulties, we were not able to speak directly with the children but spoke with nine families of children using the service. They told us they liked the support they received and that the staff were professional and respectful. They also confirmed their children were treated with respect and that they were kept informed and involved in key decisions. One relative told us they were very impressed with the efforts made to establish their child’s needs and preferences before they used the service. Another relative described the service as brilliant and one described staff as excellent.

Relatives we spoke with felt their children were in safe hands and confirmed that they had no concerns about their child’s safety whilst using the service.

We saw that care and welfare needs were well met. All the relatives we spoke with were full of praise for the service. They used words such as brilliant, fantastic and second to none to describe it. One told us “They have helped through dark times” and another said “They bend over backwards to help out”. They all confirmed the service was reliable and that staff were punctual and stayed for the allocated time.

We saw that record keeping had improved since our last visit in 2012 and the service now had an up to date range of records on the young people’s care and support needs, staff training and supervision, health and safety records and quality assurance records.

We did not receive any comments regarding this service as currently this service is not fully operational.