The inspection of Elite Privilege Care took place on 4 December 2017 followed by telephone calls to people using the service on 7 December 2017. This was the first inspection of this service as it was registered in September 2016.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It is registered to provide support to adults, some of whom may have a learning or physical disability, or be living with a diagnosis of dementia. On the day we inspected 24 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post and we met them during our inspection. 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.

People and relatives told us they felt safe and staff had good awareness of how to report any concerns. Improvements were made after any concerns were raised. Risks were well managed as the service had detailed, person-specific risk assessments and risk management plans in place.

All staff had been appropriately checked and people told us they received visits from the same care staff showing a consistency of provision.

There were no concerns around medication administration or infection control practices.

The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of current guidance and best practice, and actively encouraged more experienced staff to undertake a mentoring role.

Staff received supervision and training and the registered manager agreed to ensure this was recorded more clearly along with spot and competency checks to ensure all staff were renewing their training when necessary.

People were supported with appropriate food and drink, and had access to health and social care support as needed. Elite Privilege Care worked with a number of other domiciliary care agencies providing complex care packages and these worked well.

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.

All care staff were spoken of very highly by people using the service and their relatives. Staff were described as very caring, kind and considerate. A number of people said they went over and above their remit to ensure people were left safe and happy. Staff also considered the needs of the informal carer alongside the person using the service.

People were encouraged to be involved in reviews of their care and documentation evidenced this.

Staff sought to promote people’s privacy and dignity at every opportunity and showed a sound awareness of different cultural and spiritual needs.

Care records were person-centred with good pen portraits of people. Daily records showed the care staff were responsive to people’s needs and would accommodate these wherever possible.

The service had not received any official complaints but did treat concerns well, with appropriate investigation and learning shown, to reduce the likelihood of repeat instances.

There was a clear and shared vision for the service which was embedded in practice delivery. The registered manager and other managers were always available.

Quality assurance processes needed further embedding in the service but the structure was in place. Audits showed the quality of care was being considered along with the actual practice.

The registered manager was constantly seeking to ensure the service offered the best possible outcomes for people through regular information and knowledge sharing, and ensuring staff had access to any training as needed.