The inspection activity commenced on 12 October 2018 and concluded on 16 October 2018. We contacted people who used the service and relatives to request feedback from them on 12 October 2018. On 15 October we contacted staff to get request feedback. On 16 October we inspected the office location. This was the first inspection since the service was registered in October 2017.

The inspection was announced and was undertaken by two inspectors.

EagleCrest is a domiciliary care service which provides care and support to people living in their own homes in the community. This assists them to live as independently as possible. At the time of this inspection, three people were being supported by the service. Not everyone using EagleCrest received 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.

People were supported by staff who had received training on how to keep people safe from potential harm. Risks were assessed and measures put in place to help reduce the risk of avoidable harm.

Pre-employment checks were completed, however where potential candidates had gaps in their employment history these were not fully explored. Other checks included obtaining a disclosure and barring check (DBS) and taking up of a minimum of two references. Potential staff were required to provide proof of their identity and checking other documentation to check they were of good character and suited to work in this type of service. There were sufficient staff to ensure people’s needs were met safely.

Medicines were managed safely by trained and competent staff. However, at the time of our inspection people were only being reminded to take their medicines by staff. The provider had effective procedures in place to help prevent and control the spread of infections.

The registered manager told us no accidents or incidents had occurred since the service registered so we were unable to assess any potential learning from such events.

People's needs were assessed and met effectively by staff who had the right training, skills and support. People were encouraged to eat and drink a balanced diet to help them remain healthy. People had access a range of healthcare services when needed.

People and where appropriate their relatives were asked to consent to their care plan. However, this was an area that needed development. The registered manager was seeking additional support to help them understand and implement how the service had to apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and showed compassion. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. Staff encouraged people to make choices about things that were important to them. People were involved in the review of their care plans. However, there was little detail about people`s likes, dislikes and preferences in care plans.

There was a process in place to receive and manage complaints and compliments. Although the registered manager told us that no complaints had been received since the service registered.

The registered manager was open and transparent throughout the inspection process, was receptive to constructive feedback and was committed to develop and improve the service. This included the development of effective quality assurance systems to improve the service people received.